^%TTc^; 


mf: 


m 


t;^. 


mmmw 


wm 


W^^. 
^m^:^ 


m^MMm, 


from  t^e  fei6rart  of 

in  (glemori?  of 
3ubge  ^amuef  (giiffer  QSrecftinribge 

^eeenfeb  61? 

^amuef  (^liffer  (grecftinribge  feong 

to  t^  feifirari?  of 

(Princeton  C^eofogicaf  ^emindrj 


BV  670  .05 

Onderdonk,  Henry  U.  1789- 
1858. 

Episcopacy  examined  and  r 

'^^  V  ij  Hi  1  n  /-.  .^ 


^^^^w^' 


^ 


EPISCOPACY     EXAMINED 


RE-£XAMI]V£D, 


COMPRISING   TUB  TRACT 


"EPISCOPACY     TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE/' 


CONTROVERSY 


CONCERXINO      THAT      PUBLICATION. 


We  make  this  humble  motion,  that  the  regiments  on  both  Bides  may  be  dischargetl  out  of  tlie  /itUl, 
mid  the  point  disputed  by  dint  of  holy  Scripture;  id  verum  quod  primum.—  l'lie  Dicinee  who 
urgtted  vdth  Charle*  I.  in  the  hie  of  Wi^hU 


NEW-YORK: 


PROTESTANT      EPISCOPAL     TRACT     SOCIETY 

Depository,  Press  Buildings,  No.  46  Lumber-street, 
in  rear  of  Trinity  Church. 


Printed  at  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Press, 
No.  46  Lumber-street. 

1835. 


CONTENTS. 


Page, 

Introduction, v 

Tract,  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"      .        .        .        .        .  1 

Postscript  to  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"    ....  29 

Appendix. — Notes  to  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"       .        .  37 

Timothy  an  Apostle, 47 

Review  of  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"        ....  53 

Answer  to  that  Review, 93 

Essay— on  the  Gluestion— When  did  Paul  place  Timothy  over  the 

Church  at  Ephesus  1 114 

Second  Review  of  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  &c.,     .        .  130 

Answer  to  the  Second  Review, 175 

Review,  from  the  Biblical  Repertory,  of  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by 

Scripture," 200 

Answer  to  the  Third  Review, 229 

Dissertation  on  the  False  Apostles  mentioned  in  Scripture,     .  ''    .  267 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  Essay,  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  had  been  pub- 
lished more  than  three  years,  before  an  attempt  was  made  to 
reply  to  it.  Early  in  the  year  1834  it  was  reviewed  in  the 
"  Quarterly  Christian  Spectator,"  by  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  of 
Philadelphia.  This  review  was  immediately  followed  by  an 
answer,  in  the  "  Protestant  Episcopalian,"  by  Bishop  H.  U.  On- 
derdonk.  Of  this  answer  a  further  review  appeared  in  the 
periodical  first  mentioned,  in  the  spring  of  the  present  year, 
by  the  same  Rev.  Author;  which  was  replied  to  by  Bishop 
Onderdonk  in  the  "  Protestant  Episcopalian "  for  June.  For 
the  full  information  of  the  Christian  public,  on  the  subject  of 
Episcopacy,  so  far  as  these  productions  throw  light  upon  it,  the 
whole  of  them  are  now  republished,  in  order,  the  reviews  and 
replies  from  the  respective  journals,  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Tract  Society. 

Another  review  of  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  having 
appeared  in  the  "  Biblical  Repertory,"  for  April,  1835,  that  also^ 
and  the  reply  of  Bishop  Onderdonk,  are  republished  by  the 
Society. 

Two  short  pieces  on  the  Apostleship  of  Timothy,  from  the 
"  Protestant  Episcopalian,"  are  inserted,  after  the  Tract  and  its 
Appendix,  that  the  whole  of  that  argument  may  likewise  be  before 
the  reader.  A  Dissertation  on  the  case  of  the  False  Apostles  is 
appended  at  the  close  of  the  publication. 

(iii) 


FURTHER   ADVERTISEMENT. 


Since  the  second  reply  to  Mr.  Barnes  was  printed  in  the 
"Protestant  Episcopalian,"  we  have  observed,  in  turning  casually 
over  the  pages  of  his  little  volume,  that  he  has  there  extracted 
at  large,  what  he  merely  referred  to  in  the  first  edition  of  his  first 
review,  the  argument  of  the  late  Dr.  Wilson,  that  Timothy  was 
placed  at  Ephesus  by  Paul  at  the  time  the  latter  fled  from  that 
city,  in  consequence  of  the  riot  or  "uproar"  mentioned  in 
Acts  XX.  1.  We  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  answer  a  mere 
reference  to  an  argument  contained  in  a  different  work  from  the 
one  then  before  us.  But  as  the  full  reprint  of  it  may  seem  to 
make  our  reply  incomplete,  particularly  to  the  assertion  of 
Mr.  Barnes,  which  he  of  course  deems  more  fully  illustrated  by 
the  extract  from  Dr.  Wilson,  that  Timothy  was  placed  at  Ephe- 
sus only  "  temporarily,"  we  refer,  in  return,  to  the  arguments 
of  Macknight,  concerning  the  date  of  the  first  epistle  to  him, 
and  his  connexion  with  the  church  in  that  city.  (See  his  Pre- 
face to  the  Epistle,  sect.  2 ;  and  Life  of  Paul,  cTiap.  xi.)  We 
also  ask  the  reader's  attention  to  an  essay  on  the  subject,  from 
the  "  Protestant  Episcopalian,"  for  May,  1831 ;  which  is  here 
reprinted  after  our  answer  to  Mr.  Barnes'  first  review. 

<i^)  H.  U.  O. 


INTRODUCTION. 


In  his  Answer  to  the  Review  of  "Episcopacy  Tested  by 
Scripture,"  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes,  the  author  of  that  tract 
affirmed  that  the  presumptive  argument  is  with  the  advocates 
of  Episcopacy,  and  the  BuftoEN  of  proof  on  its  opponents.  This 
consideration  is  not  without  weight ;  and,  as  it  was  omitted  in 
the  Tract,  a  statement  of  it  is  here  prefixed. 

By  the  presumptive  argument  is  meant,  a  reason  or  reasons 
for  'presuming  a  proposition  to  be  true,  before  the  main  discus- 
sion is  entered  upon.  By  the  burden  of  proof ,  so  far  as  it  is  con- 
trasted with  this  argument,  is  meant,  the  necessity  of  refuting  a 
reason  or  reasons  for  preswwin^, before  commencing  the  decisive 
investigation,  that  a  certain  proposition  is  untrue. 

When  it  is  alleged,  as  it  sometimes  is,  that  the  burden  of  proof 
in  this  controversy  lies  on  Episcopalians,  the  only  ground  of  the 
allegation  is,  that  the  claims  of  Episcopacy  displace  all  Non- 
episcopal  ministers,  and  unchurch  all  Non-episcopal  denomina- 
tions. The  latter  consequence  is  disclaimed  by  the  author  of 
the  Tract.  And  as  to  the  former,  and  indeed  both,  if  both  are 
supposed  to  follow,  they  may  indeed,  as  being  unacceptable  to 
the  feelings,  require  cogent  and  decisive  arguments  for  our 
claims ;  but  they  do  not  aflfect  what  is  logically  called  the  burden 
of  proof.  Because  a  thing  is,  is  no  presumption  that  it  is  right. 
Because  there  are  Non-episcopal  ministers,  is  no  presumption 
that  their  ministry  is  valid.  The  comparative  merits  of  Chris- 
tianity and  Mahomedism,  for  example,  are  to  be  discussed ;  if 
Christianity  shall  have  the  better  of  the  argument,  it  will  dis- 
place the  latter  religion  and  its  ministers ;  does  this  consequence 
throw  the  burden  of  proof,  as  distinguished  from  the  argument 
proper,  on  the  former  ?  Surely  not :  because  Mahomedism  and 
Mahomedan  ministers  exist,  is  no  presumption  that  they  have 
truth  on  their  side.  Again :  the  question  between  the  Quakers 
and  those  who  hold  to  an  ordained  ministry  and  visible  sacra- 
ments, is  to  be  discussed ;  if  the  latter  party  prevail,  they  un- 
church the  former  and  displace  their  ministry ;  but  against  the 

1*  (5) 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 

justice  of  these  consequences  there  is,  for  the  reason  given,  no 
logical  presumption.  So,  when  some  Romanists  deny  our 
ministry;  though  we  have  this  presumptive  argument  against 
them,  that,  as  no  one  civil  ruler  and  government  has  ever  swayed 
the  whole  world,  it  may  be  supposed  that  no  one  ecclesiastical 
ruler  and  government  ought  to  have  dominion  over  all  churches ; 
yet  we  make  no  further  claim  to  throw  on  them  the  burden 
of  proof.  And  our  Non-episcopal  brethren  must  submit  to  the 
same  obvious  rule. 

A  presumptive  argument  for  a  ministry  is,  that  in  all^^ivil 
society  the  people  have  officers  over  them.  A  similar  presump- 
tive argument  for  Episcopacy  is,  that  in  all  large  civil  societies,  the 
officers  over  the  smaller  portions  of  the  people  have  higher  offi- 
cers over  them.  The  number  of  grades  among  the  officers  may 
vary,  as  expediency  shall  dictate ;  but  there  is  always  the  feature 
in  civil  governments  of  magnitude,  that  many  officers,  and 
several  grades  of  them,  have  a  common  head  above  all.  The 
exceptions  to  this  rule  are  few,  if  any,  and  are  of  course  unavail- 
ing in  this  discussion.  We  find  the  same  rule  in  armies,  navies, 
corporations,  colleges,  associations.  Human  wisdom  then,  or 
COMMON  SENSE,  as  indicated  by  almost  invariable  practice, 
declares  for  grades  of  officers,  and  a  chief  grade  superior  to  the 
rest.  And  the  presumptive  argument  is  obviously  on  this  side 
of  the  question  between  clerical  imparity  and  parity ;  it  is  in 
favor  of  Episcopacy ;  and  the  burden  of  proof,  whether  that 
proof  be  sought  in  Scripture  or  elsewhere,  is  on  those  who  act  in 
opposition  to  this  all  but  universal  rule. 

Another  presumptive  argument  for  Episcopacy  is,  that  in  the 
ministries  of  all  false  religions,  if  extensively  professed,  there 
are  different  grades,  with  a  common  superior.  This  feature 
cannot,  without  a  petitio  principii,  be  deemed  one  of  the  errors 
of  these  religions ;  nay,  it  is  sanctioned,  as  will  immediately  be 
shown,  by  dispensations  allowed  to  be  from  God.  From  these 
dispensations  was  the  Heathen  and  Mahomedan  imparity  bor- 
rowed ;  or  else  it  was  instituted  in  accordance  with  the  dictates 
of  human  wisdom  and  common  sense.  Take  either  view,  and 
we  have  a  further  presumptive  argument  for  clerical  imparity, 
or  Episcopacy. 

A  third  presumptive  argument  in  our  favor  is  found  in  the 
Patriarchal  Church.  Abraham  was  a  priest,  as  well  as  Melchi- 
sedec :  yet  he  paid  tithes  to  him  ;  which  proves  the  superior 
priestly  rank  of  Melchisedec.    To  the  same  effect,  the  Epistle  to 


INTRODUCTION.  Vll 

the  Hebrews  declares  our  Lord  to  be  both  a  "priest"  and  a 
"high-priest"  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec;  and  there  could 
have  been  no  high-priest  in  that  order  without  inferior  priests. 
Hence  a  third  presumption — and  one  peculiarly  strong,  if  the 
order  of  Melchisedec  be  that  of  the  Christian  ministry — for 
more  than  one  grade  in  the  latter. 

A  fourth  presumption  is  drawn^  from  the  Mosaic  priesthood, 
which  consisted  of  a  high-priest,  priests  and  Levites.  This  ana- 
logy with  the  three  grades  of  Episcopacy  is  too  obvious  to  need 
amplification. 

We  adduce,  then,  the  almost  universal  voice  of  human  wisdom, 
COMMON  SENSE,  and  the  universal  rule  of  all  widely-spread 
RELIGIONS,  false  and  true,  as  presumptive  arguments  that  when 
our  Saviour  organized  his  ministry  he  would  organize  it  on 
the  principle  of  imparity.  With  this  almost  conclusive  pre- 
sumption in  favor  of  Episcopacy,  let  the  reader  enter  upon  the 
"testing"  of  that  model  of  the  sacred  office  by  "Scripture." 
This  presumption  is  so  weighty,  that  nothing  but  perfectly 
clear  and  explicit  passages  against  ministerial  imparity  can 
overturn  it ;  yet  such  passages  there  are  none.  Only  obscure 
texts,  of  doubtful  meaning  at  best,  are  adduced  in  opposition  to 
this  argument,  and  the  claims  of  Episcopacy.  The  whole  clear 
current  of  revealed  evidence  is  with  these  presumptions,  and 
decides  in  favor  of  our  ministry. 

H.  IT.  Onderdonk. 
Philadelphia,  1835. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY  SCRIPTURE. 


The  claim  of  episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  institution,  and 
therefore  obligatory  on  the  Church,  rests  fundamentally  on  the 
one  question— has  it  the  authority  of  Scripture  ?  If  it  has  not, 
it  is  not  necessarily  binding.  If  it  has,  the  next  and  only  other 
question  is — has  any  diiferent  arrangement  of  the  sacred  minis- 
try scriptural  authority  ?  If  there  be  any  such,  that  also  has 
divine  sanction,  and  must  stand  with  episcopacy.  If,  however, 
none  such  can  be  found,  then  episcopacy  alone  has  the  counte- 
nance of  the  word  of  God. 

Such  a  statement  of  the  essential  point  of  the  episcopal  con- 
troversy is  entirely  simple ;  and  this  one  point  should  be  kept  ia 
view  in  every  discussion  of  the  subject ;  no  argument  is  worth 
takuig  into  account  that  has  not  a  palpable  bearing  on  the 
clear  and  naked  topic — the  scriptural  evidence  of  episcopacy. 
It  is  easy  indeed  to  make  a  plain  topic  seem  complicated ;  infi- 
delity casts  its  flimsy  shadow  over  the  doctrine  of  a  God  ;  scep- 
ticism weaves  its  webs  about  the  evidence  of  the  senses ;  Socini- 
anism  cannot  discern  in  Scripture  proof  that  the  death  of  Christ 
was  a  proper  atoning  sacrifice ;  and  the  same  cavilhng  persecu- 
tion attends  almost  all  simple  truths,  and  that  usually  in  propor- 
tion to  their  obviousness,  or  the  facility  of  their  demonstration. 
Episcopacy  does  not  escape  these  inflictions  of  forensic  injustice. 
Its  simple  and  clear  argument  is  obstructed  with  many  extrane- 
ous and  irrelevant  difficulties,  which,  instead  of  aiding  the  mind 
in  reaching  the  truth  on  that  great  subject,  tend  only  to  divert  it, 
and  occupy  it  with  questions  not  affecting  the  main  issue.  These 
obstructions  we  must  remove,  and  make  ourselves  a  free  and 
unimpeded  course,  if  we  desire  to  go  forward  with  singleness 
of  mind  in  testing  episcopacy  by  Scripture. 

It  will  therefore  be  the  first  object  of  this  essay,  to  point  out 
some  of  these  extraneous  questions  and  difficulties,  and  expose 
either  their  fallacy  or  their  irrelevancy.  The  next  object  will 
be,  to  state  the  scriptural  argument. — Little  or  no  reference  will 
here  be  made  to  the  fathers  ;  not  because  their  testimony  is 
depreciated ;  for  it  is  of  paramount  value,  in  showing  how  the 
Scriptures,  connected  with  this  controversy,  were  interpreted  by 
those  who  knew  how  the  apostles  themselves  understood  them. 
But  the  present  wiiter  believes  that  Scripture  alone  will  furnish 
such  authority  for  episcopacy  as  will  convince  an  unsophisti- 
cated judgment,  and  be  held  obligatory  by  an  unprejudiced 
conscience. 


4  EPISCOPACY   TESTED  BY   SCRIPTURE. 

I.  In  order  to  keep  the  judgment  and  the  conscience  thus 
clear,  all  extraneous  considerations  must  be  set  aside.  To  effect 
this  purgation  of  the  argument  is  our  first  object. 

1.  An  objection  or  allegation,  entirely  extraneous  to  scriptural 
reasoning,  but  often  made  to  bear  on  the  episcopal  controversy, 
is— that  our  ecclesiastical  system  is  inimical  to  free  civil  govern- 
ment. We  first  answer  to  this  objection,  that  it  is  irrelevant ; 
for  if  episcopacy  be  set  forth  in  Scripture,  it  is  the  ordinance  of 
God  ;  of  course,  free  civil  governments  must,  in  that  case,  accede 
to  its  unqualified  toleration  ;  and  the  citizens  professing  Chris- 
tianity are  individually  bound  to  conform  to  it.  No  serious  per- 
son will  set  any  rights  of  man,  above  the  will  of  God.  We  nex* 
answer,  that  the  allegation  is  proved  to  be  false  by  experience. 
In  this  country,  no  firmer  friends  of  civil  liberty  could  or  can 
be  found,  formerly  or  at  present,  than  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church ;  nor  is  there  any  class  of  men  belonging  to  that  body 
who  are  not  the  friends  of  civil  liberty ;  and  in  Great  Britain  the 
same  remark  holds  true,  according  to  the  standard  of  freedom 
there  deemed  constitutional.  But  we  have  a  third  answer— the 
allegation  is  false  in  theory.  No  free  government  need  fear  any 
reputable  denomination,  which  is  not  established,  and  does  not 
intermeddle  with  political  affairs.  Should  any  denomination  be 
tempted  thus  to  intermeddle,  the  re-action  of  the  spirit  of  fre&> 
dom  will  give  it  a  lesson  not  to  be  forgotten  in  a  century.  And, 
as  episcopacy  is  more  adverse  than  non-episcopacy  to  setting  in 
motion  popular  currents,  or  to  taking  advantage  of  them,  thai 
ecclesiastical  system  is  less  likely  to  fall  into  such  an  error. 
Moreover,  when  we  add  to  this  consideration,  that  all  free 
governments  must  desire,  from  their  very  nature,  to  keep  popu- 
lar influence  and  impulse  to  themselves,  we  may  securely  affirm, 
that  episcopacy  is  peculiarly  adapted  to  free  government :  not 
affecting  mere  popularity,  it  leaves  that  field  of  competition  en- 
tirely to  politicians.  Whatever  be  the  reverence  and  attachment 
felt  towards  oiu:  bishops,  they  can  seldom,  probably  never,  attain 
to  general  notoriety  and  favour  in  any  branch  of  civil  affairs ; 
none  of  them  have  thus  far  sought  any  thing  of  the  kind ;  out 
of  their  ecclesiastical  sphere,  their  influence,  other  than  pertains 
to  all  virtuous  citizens,  will  ever  be  but  small,  or  harmless,  or 
exceedingly  transient.  An  arbitrary  government  may  indeed 
find  the  case  different.  If  the  people  at  large  are  prostrated  by 
or  to  the  civil  power,  they  may  be  equally  or  more  subservient 
to  ecclesiastical  domination ;  in  which  case,  bishops  (like  all  reli- 
gious leaders)  may  sometimes  prove  less  tractable  than  that 
government  desires.  But  are  not  such  interferences  as  likely  to 
be  favourable  to  the  subject,  and  his  few  rights,  as  against  them? 
And,  whether  this  suggestion  be  granted  or  denied,  the  operation 
of  episcopacy  in  and  on  an  arbitrary  government  is  not  the 
point  before  us. — We  assert  that  the  allegation  that  episcopacy 
is,  in  any  sense,  unfavourable  to  free  civil  government,  is  in- 
eorrectj  both  in  theory  and  in  fact,  and  that  the  whole  objection 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  5 

IS  irrelevant  to  the  inquiry,  whether  episcopacy  be  according  to 
the  word  of  God. 

2.  Another  of  these  extraneous  considerations  is — the  com- 
parative standing  in  piety,  as  evinced  by  the  usual  tokens  of 
moral  and  spiritual  character,  of  the  members  respectively  of 
the  episcopal  and  non-episcopal  Churches.  This  question  is 
highly  important  in  itself;  but  it  has  no  bearing  on  the  argument 
for  or  against  episcopacy.  We  have  the  authority  of  our  Sa- 
viour for  the  utter  moral  and  spiritual  worthlessness  of  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  of  his  day :  but  we  have  also  his  authority 
for  declaring  that,  in  spite  of  their  bad  character,  they  "  sat  in 
Moses'  seat:"*^  and  that  the  people  were  therefore  bound  to 
obey  them,  while  yet  they  were  to  avoid  following  their  evil 
example.  Suppose,  then,  the  reader  were  persuaded  that  all  the 
bishops  in  the  world  were  "  hypocrites,"  &c.  &c.,  and  that  all 
episcopal  Churches  were  in  a  corresponding  state  of  degradation, 
still  if  Scripture  be  alleged  for  the  claim  that  "  bishops  sit  in  the 
apostles'  seats,"  it  is  but  right,  in  testing  that  particular  claim, 
that  there  be  no  reference  whatever  to  the  personal  character 
of  bishops,  or  to  any  real  or  supposed  want  of  spirituality  in  the 
Churches  under  their  government.  Our  Saviour  clearly  taught, 
in  the  passage  alluded  to,  the  entire  distinctness  of  these  two 
questions.  Balaam  also  was  a  wicked  man,  but  a  true  prophet.** 
The  sons  of  Eli,  bad  as  they  were,«^  ceased  not  to  be  priests. 
The  Israelites  at  large  were  often  corrupt  and  idolatrous  ;  but 
they  never  lost  their  standing  as  the  earthly  and  visible  Church, 
till  their  dispensation  was  superseded  by  that  of  the  gospel. 
Those,  therefore,  who  even  maintain  that  episcopacy  is  essential 
to  the  being  of  a  Church,  are  not  to  be  worsted  by  the  extraneous 
argument  now  before  us,  the  comparative  standing  in  piety  of 
Episcopalians  and  Non-Episcopalians.  And,  though  the  present 
writer  subscribes  not  to  that  extreme  opinion,  his  moderation 
nas  no  affinity  with  the  illogical  temperament  of  mind  which 
allows  the  question  of  comparative  piety  to  be  obtruded  upon 
the  investigation  of  the  simple  point — is  episcopacy  to  be  found 
in  Scripture  ? 

In  justice,  however,  to  Episcopalians,  he  deems  it  proper  to 
add,  that  he  does  not  believe  they  will  suffer  by  any  comparison 
of  their  character  with  those  of  other  denominations. 

3.  A  further  suggestion,  allied  to  the  one  last  mentioned,  and 
like  it  extraneous  to  the  scriptural  claim  of  episcopacy,  is — that 
the  external  arrangements  of  religion  are  but  of  inferior  im- 
portance, and  that  therefore  all  scruple  concerning  the  subject 
before  us  may  be  dispensed  with.  Now,  that  there  are,  in  the 
word  of  God,  things  more  important,  and  things  less  important, 
is  unquestionable ;  and  that  the  sin  of  omitting  a  lesser  duty  is 
not  so  deep  as  that  of  omitting  a  greater,  will  be  allowed.  Still, 
the  least  sin  is  sin.    Perhaps  there  was  no  part  of  the  old  law 

a  Matt,  rsiii.  2.  b  Num.  zxii.  to  ixiv.  and  xxxi.  16.  c  1  Sam.  ii. 

1* 


6  EPKCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE. 

that  stood  lower  in  the  scale  of  importance  than  "  paying  tithes 
of  mint,  anise,  and  cummin ;"  yet  our  Saviour  declared  to  the 
Jews  that  even  this  was  a  duty  which  they  "  ought  not  to  leave 
undone.'"^— Can  then  episcopacy,  though  regarded  as  an  affair 
of  the  merest  outward  order,  be  rated  lower  than  these  insignifi- 
cant tithes  ?  If  it  cannot,  it  has  a  sufficient  claim  to  consideration ; 
high  as  we  deem  the  obligation  to  conform  to  episcopacy,  it  is 
enough  for  the  present  branch  of  our  argument,  that  it  "ought 
not  to  be  left"  unheeded. 

4.  An  apparently  formidable,  yet  extraneous  difficulty,  often 
raised,  is— that  episcopal  claims  unchurch  all  non-episcopal  de- 
nominations. By  the  present  writer  this  consequence  is  not  al- 
lowed. But,  granting  it  to  the  fullest  extent,  what  bearing  has 
it  on  the  truth  of  the  simple  proposition,  that  episcopacy  is  of 
divine  ordinance?  Such  a  consequence,  as  involving  the  exclusion 
from  the  covenant  of  worthy  persons  who  believe  themselves  in 
it,  is  unquestionably  fraught  with  painful  reflections,  and  that  to 
the  serious  of  both  parties :  but  so  are  many  undeniable  truths. 
Considerations  of  this  kind  cannot  affect  any  sound  proposition. 
— Some  other  considerations,  not  without  value,  here  present 
themselves.  If  Job  lived  about  the  time  of  Moses,  or  later,  he 
was  not  in  the  Church ;  yet  he  was  eminently  pious,  and  in  fa- 
vour with  God  :  and  the  same,  with  some  qualification,  may  be 
said  of  his  friends.  Balaam  was  not  in  the  Church,  yet  he  was 
an  inspired  prophet.  Jethro,  the  father-in-law  of  Moses,  a  ser- 
vant of  the  true  God,  of  whose  sacrificial  feast,  Moses,  Aaron, 
and  the  elders  of  Israel  participated, «  was  not  in  the  Church. 
The  descendants  of  Jethro,  who  lived  with  Israel,f  and  must 
have  shared  the  benefit  of  the  divine  oracles,  belonged  not,  we 
think,  to  the  Church,  but  were  uncircumcised,  at  least  for  many 
centuries :  and,  under  the  name  of  Rechabites,  these  people  thus 
living  with  Israel,  though  not  of  Israel,  and  calling  themselves 
"strangers,"  were  highly  commended  by  the  Deity,  at  the  very 
time  he  passed  a  severe  censure  on  his  Church  or  covenant  peo- 
ple.^ The  countenance  given  to  other  proselytes  of  the  gate,'» 
is  a  further  illustration  to  the  same  effect— -ui^r.  that,  though  ^1 
who  hear  the  gospel  are  bound  to  enter  the  Church  by  baptism, 
yet  if  any,  honest  in  their  error,  think  they  are  not  thus  bound, 
there  is  Scripture  for  the  assertion,  that  worthy  professors  of  the 
true  religion,  innocently  without  the  covenant-pale,  are  accepted 
with  God.— Viewing,  therefore,  the  objection  before  us  in  even 
its  largest  form,  it  is  not  of  a  kind  to  be  driven  away  from 
decorous  consideration.    To  say  that  other  denominations  of 

d  Matt,  xxiii.  23.  Luke  xi.  42.  e  Exod.  xviii.  11,  12.  f  Judges  i.  16.,  ir.  IL 
g  Jer.  XXXV.  The  question  whether  tlie  descendants  of  Jethro  were  circumcised 
and  belonged  to  the  Church,  is  discussed,  and  a  negative  conclusion  drawn,  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopalian,  for  October,  1830,  p.  368.  Should,  however,  any  reader 
Incline  to  a  different  opinion,  he  will  please  regard  as  omitted  so  much  of  the  above 
argument  as  is  involved  in  that  question :  it  affords  only  an  incidental  illustration  of 
the  subject,  without  having  the  least  bearing  on  our  main  point. 
h  See  Hammond  on  Matt,  xxiii.  15.,  and  Calmet's  Dictionary. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  7 

Christians  belong  not  to  the  Church,  by  no  means  impUes  that 
they  are  cast  out  from  the  mercy  of  God  through  the  Saviour — 
or,  that  they  are  inferior  to  the  Church  in  moral  and  spiritual 
character — or  even,  that  they  are  not  superior  in  these  respects 
to  its  members.  Still,  none  of  these  concessions,  supposing 
even  the  last  of  them  were  made,  can  render  void  the  divine 
appointment  of  the  Church,  the  divine  command  to  "  all  na- 
tions," and  of  course  to  all  mankind,  to  be  united  with  it,  or  the 
scriptural  evidence  for  episcopacy  as  the  divinely  sanctioned  or- 
ganization of  its  ministry. 

Many  Episcopalians,  however,  disclaim  the  unchurching  of 
those  who  disallow  the  episcopal  model  of  the  sacred  orders. 
Their  reasons  for  doing  so  pertain  not  to  the  present  field  of 
controversy.  They  think  that  episcopacy  is  a  sufficiently  dis- 
tinct question,  to  be  separately  carried  into  Scripture,  and  there 
separately  investigated.  They  think  that  its  scriptural  claims 
can  be  sufficiently  proved  to  make  its  rejection  a  clear  contra- 
vention of  the  word  of  God,  of  the  intimations  there  given  us 
concerning  his  will  in  this  matter.  And,  if  this  amount  of  proof 
can  be  offered  for  the  point  before  us,  what  serious  and  con- 
scientious believer  will  ask  for  either  more  evidence,  or  for  its 
embracing  other  points,  with  which  the  question  of  episcopacy 
is  not  essentially  involved  ? 

5.  We  proceed  to  other  extraneous  matter,  which,  though 
scarcely  plausible  even  in  appearance,  is  almost  uniformly  dwelt 
upon  by  both  parties  in  this  controversy.  It  is — the  adducing 
of  the  authority  of  individuals,  who,  though  eminent  both  for 
learning  and  piety,  seem  at  least  to  have  contradicted  themselves, 
or  their  public  standards,  on  the  subject  of  episcopacy;  ana 
who  therefore  are  brought  into  the  fore-ground  by  either  side 
as  may  serve  its  turn.  Now,  is  it  not  clear,  that  the  only  effect 
of  appeals  to  such  authorities  is  to.  distract  sound  investigation 
and  the  unbiassed,  search  for  truth?  If  the  writers  in  question 
absolutely  contradict  themselves  or  the  standards  they  have 
assented  to,  their  authority  in  the  case  is  void  ;  if  they  seem  io 
do  so,  their  opinions  cease  to  be  convincing ;  they  should  there- 
fore, all  of  them,  be  surrendered.  The  consistency  of  such  in- 
dividuals is  a  question  for  their  biographers ;  it  may  also  belong 
to  the  Churches  which  acknowledge  them  as  leaders ;  but  it  cer- 
tainly is  not  relevant  to  the  main  issue  concerning  the  claims, 
whether  of  episcopacy  or  of  parity.  A  similar  rule  will  apply 
to  all  cases  of  instability  or  indecision  concerning  truth.  Men 
of  the  highest  standing  for  information,  for  integrity,  and  in 
public  confidence,  are  not  only  fallible,  but  are  often  in  situations 
of  such  perplexity,  that  they  attach  themselves  to  an  opinion,  or 
select  a  course  of  conduct,  without  perhaps  sufficient  inquiry  or 
insight  into  the  case ;  which  opinion  or  conduct  may  be  at  the 
time,  or  may  afterwards  be  found,  somewhat  at  variance  with 
their  more  deliberate  judgments.  In  public  life  especially,  such 
difficulties  are  very  appalling.    The  present  writer  would  not 


»  EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY  SCRIPTURE. 

regard  the  mistakes  of  this  sort  into  which  the  eminent  indivi- 
duals he  now  has  in  mind  may  have  fallen,  as  blemishes  which 
men  are  called  upon  to  censure,  much  less  to  exaggerate  or  vilify  j 
let  it  suffice  that  we  do  not  imitate  them ;  their  and  our  Master, 
we  doubt  not,  remembers  in  mercy  that  we  all  are  but  dust. — 
Most  of  the  principal  reformers  are  to  be  enumerated  under  this 
head  of  our  subject,  Luther,  Melancthon,  Cranmer,  Calvin,  Beza; 
we  need  not  extend  the  list ;  they  have  all  been  somewhat  in- 
consistent on  the  subject  of  episcopacy ;  not  much  so  perhaps  to 
a  candid,  or  at  least  to  a  mild  judgment ;  yet  enough  to  impair 
the  authority  of  their  individual  opinions  in  regard  to  the  scrip- 
tural constitution  of  the  ministry. — Another  class  of  illustrious 
and  good  men  have  been  yet  more  inconsistent ;  those  who,  be- 
longing to  the  Episcopal  [English]  Church,  and  acting  in  the 
various  grades  of  her  ministry,  not  excepting  the  highest,  were 
the  friends  of  parity,  or  at  least  were  not  friendly  to  the  episco- 
pacy in  or  under  which  they  acted.  In  regard  to  these  also,  let 
it  be  conceded  that  even  Episcopalians  will  not  criminate  them. 
But  let  them  not  be  quoted  as  having  authority  in  this  contro- 
versy, no,  not  the  least ;  for,  however  innocent  may  have  been 
the  motive  of  their  inconsistency,  that  unfortunate  quality  is  too 
visible  to  allow  their  opinions  on  this  subject  to  have,  as  such, 
the  least  weight  in  an  impartial  mind. — A  third  class  may  be 
here  added;  those  who  dianged  their  deliberate  sentiments 
concerning  the  claims  of  episcopacy  ;  among  whom  Bishop 
Stillingfleet  is  conspicuous.  Perhaps,  in  such  cases,  the  later 
and  maturer  opinion  should  be  regarded  as  outweighing  the 
earlier  one  abjured.  But  Ave  prefer  setting  them  both  aside,  as 
having  none  of  the  authority  due  to  the  individual  decisions  of 
the  learned.  The  arguments  indeed  of  all  the  above  classes  of 
persons  are  worth  as  much  as  they  ever  were,  and  may  be  again 
adduced,  if  they  have  not  been  refuted.  And  what  they  placed 
in  their  respective  public  standards,  or  allowed  to  be  so  placed, 
cannot  be  retracted,  till  it  be  denied  as  solemnly  as  it  was  affirm- 
ed. But  their  individual  changes  of  opinion,  or  vacillations,  or 
concessions,  ought  not  to  be  deemed  of  any  force  whatever,  for 
or  against  either  party.*  We  reject,  therefore,  this  whole  extra- 
neous appendage  of  the  controversy  before  us.  The  inquirer 
after  truth  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.    Let  the  admirers  of  these 


i  Should  it  be  argued,  that,  from  the  inconsistency  with  which  these  learned  and 
pious  men  have  expressed  themselves  on  this  subject,  we  may  infer  their  belief  in 
the  non-importance  or  uncertainty  of  the  point  here  controverted — I  answer,  that 
such  a  conclusion  is  not  warranted  by  the  premises.  If  these  eminent  persons  had 
deemed  the  question  nugatory,  they  would  have  said  so  plainly.  Or,  if  any  of  them 
give  such  intimations,  that  is  a  separate  question,  extraneous  to  the  one  now  before 
us,  and  we  have  answered  it  in  a  previous  paragraph,  marked  3.  These  persons, 
however,  generally  take  sides  respecting  episcopacy,  but  do  not  inflexibly  adhere  to 
them.  The  true  inference  therefore  is,  either  that  they  were  not  entirely  consistent, 
or  that  they  had  not  full  information  or  full  mental  discipline  in  this  argument  Take 
any  view  of  their  case,  and  it  will  be  found  that  their  opinions  cannot,  as  such,  have 
Weight  in  our  controversy. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  9 

eminent  individuals  endeavour  to  clear  away  the  slight  shades 
thus  resting  upon  their  memories ;  it  is  a  proper,  it  is  even  a 
pious  undertaking ;  and  it  may,  in  some  of  the  cases,  have  been 
done  sufficiently  for  personal  vindication.  But  nothing  of  this 
kind  can  make  them  rank  as  either  authorities  or  guides  in  the 
present  controversy. 

Appealing  to  every  candid  and  impartial  mind  for  the  sound- 
ness of  the  above  rule,  we  would  add — that  the  rule  applies  to 
the  fathers,  as  much  as  to  later  ornaments  of  the  Church.  One, 
at  least,  of  the  fathers  has  written  in  a  contradictory  manner 
concerning  episcopacy.  It  will  indeed  be  with  reluctance  that 
our  non-episcopal  brethren  surrender  Jerome,  their  chief,  if  not 
only  authority  among  these  ancient  Christian  writers.  But  it 
"Will  be  hard  to  show  that  he  was  in  no  degree  inconsistent  in 
his  views  of  episcopacy ;  it  is  impossible  to  show  it  in  such  a 
manner  as  may,  without  question,  claim  to  be  convincing  to 
both  parties.''  Believing  this  ourselves,  and  believing  also  that 
it  will  appear  self-evident  to  most  who  are  duly  informed,  we 
appeal  to  the  calm  and  conscientious  decision  of  the  reader, 
whether  the  opinions  of  Jerome  must  not  be  set  aside,  as  having 
no  authority  in  the  main  issue  before  us.  His  opinions,  we  say, 
for  he  asserts  nothing  as  a  fact,  on  his  personal  knowledge  ;  and 
much  of  what  he  does  assert  is  contrary  to  the  testimony  of  ear- 
lier fathers. 

6.  The  last  objection  we  shall  notice,  as,  however  plausible, 
not  affecting  the  ultimate  decision  of  our  controversy,  is — that 
though  the  examples  recorded  in  Scripture  should  be  allowed  to 
favour  episcopacy,  still  that  regimen  is  not  there  explicitly  cojn^ 
manded.  Now,  this  allegation  may  be  fully  conceded  on  our 
Dart,  without  endangering  the  final  success  of  our  cause.  We 
say,  may  be  conceded;  for  if  episcopacy  be  allowed  to  be  the 
model  exempUfied  in  Scripture,  it  was  of  course  to  tkat  model 
the  apostle  alluded  when  he  desired  the  brethren  to  "  remember, 
obey,  and  submit  themselves  to  those  who  had  the  rule  over 
them,  who  had  spoken  to  them  the  word  of  God,  and  who 
watched  for  their  souls ;'"  which  passages,  we  may  justly  affirm, 
were,  in  that  case,  an  inspired  command  to  acknowledge  a 
ministry  constituted  on  the  episcopal  scheme.  Without  surren- 
dering this  argument,  we  may,  in  the  present  stage  of  the  dis- 
cussion, proceed  without  it. 

Let  then  any  candid  and  conscientious  believer  say,  whether 
a  mere  hint  or  intimation  contained  in  Scripture,  (always  ex- 


k  Jerome,  as  quoted  in  favour  of  parity,  is  glaringly  inconastent.  On  the  episcopal 
side,  however,  some  writers  endeavour  to  reconcile  his  incongruous  opinions.  (See 
Bishop  White  on  the  Catechism,  p.  466 ;  and  Dr.  Cooke's  Essay,  p.  101.  [p.  283, 
2d  ed.]  &c.)  But  the  fact  speaks  for  itself  that  he  is  usually  adduced  on  both  sides 
of  this  controversy.  Enough  to  prove  his  inconsistenc}'-  may  be  found  in  Potter 
on  Church  Government,  p.  180,  Amer.  Eidit. ;  in  Bishop  Hob  art's  Apology,  p.  179, 
&c. ;  in  Bo  wden's  Letters ;  in  the  Episcopal  Manual,  p.  38 ;  and  in  the  ProtestofU 
Episcopalian,  No.  3.  p  90,  97,  98. 

i  Heb.  xiU.  7,  17, 


10  EPlSCOPACy   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE. 

cepting  what  refers  to  things  or  circumstances  declared  to  be 
transient,  or  such  in  their  nature,)  though  it  have  not  the  force 
of  an  express  command,  is  not  sufficiently  binding  on  every 
servant  of  God  ?  St.  Paul  says  of  the  Gentiles,  "  these,  having 
not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves  ;"™  they  had  not  the 
positive  revealed  law,  yet  the  light  of  nature,  which  only  hiti- 
raates  what  we  ought  to  do,  but  does  not  specifically  prescribe 
it,  was  "  a  law"  to  them,  having  sufficient  obligation  to  make  its 
suggestions  their  duty,  and  to  give  those  suggestions  full  author- 
ity in  "  their  conscience :"  and  surely  the  hints  recorded  by  the 
Deity  in  his  word  are  not  inferior  in  obligation  to  those  afforded 
in  his  works.  Take  a  few  examples.  There  is  no  record  of  a 
command  to  observe  a  sabbath,  during  the  whole  antediluvian 
and  patriarchal  ages  ;  will  it  then  be  alleged  that  the  mere  de- 
claration that  God  "  blessed  and  sanctified  the  seventh  day"°  did 
not  sufficiently  imply  that  it  was  the  divine  will  that  the  seventh 
day  should  be  kept  holy  ?  Again :  there  is  no  recorded  com- 
mand, in  all  that  early  period,  to  observe  the  rite  of  sacrifice,  and 
thus  express  faith  in  the  great  truth,  that  sin  is  remitted  only  by 
the  shedding  of  blood ;  shall  we  then  presume — will  it  be  pre- 
sumed, by  m.y  whose  chief  controversy  with  us  is  concerning 
episcopacy— that  the  records  of  the  example  of  Abel  in  the  an- 
tediluvian age,  and  of  those  of  Noah,  Abraham,  &c.,  afterwards, 
were  not  sufficient  intimations  from  God  that  to  offer  this  sacra- 
mental atonement  was  a  duty?°  Yet  again:  will  any  humble 
Christian  deny,  that  the  mere  fact  of  the  creation  for  each  other 
of  one  man  and  one  woman,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  polygamy  is 
contrary  to  the  will  of  God  ?p  To  proceed  to  the  New  Testament. 
There  is  no  positive  command  for  infant  baptism ;  but,  its  analo- 
gy with  circumcision,  "J  the  declaration  that  little  children  are 
models  for  conversion,'"  the  direction  to  suffer  them  to  come  to 
Christ,  since  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,«  the  records  of  the 
baptism  of  "households"  or  families,*  and  the  declaration 
that  "children  are  holy"  or  saints" — are  not  these  sufficient, 
whether  as  examples  or  as  intimations^  to  satisfy  us  of  the  dic- 
tate of  inspiration  in  this  matter,  and  to  authorize  us  to  regard 
infant  baptism  as  resting  on  scriptural  authority  ?  And  will  not 
the  same  mode  of  reasoning  be  decisive  concerning  the  change 
of  the  day  of  rest  and  devotion  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  ?' 

m  Rom.  ii.  14,  n  Gen.  ii.  3. 

o  It"  it  be  alleged  that  the  "  skins"  (Gen.  iii.  21.)  in  which  the  Deity  clothed  Adam 
and  Eve,  were  from  sacrificed  animals,  and  that  the  record  of  that  fact  is  the  same 
as  divine  appointment  and  a  positive  command — we  admit  the  fact,  but  deny  that  the 
inferences  are  thus  identical  with  it.  All  that  appears  in  that  passage  is  an  example 
of  sacrifice.  The  obligation  and  permanency  of  the  rite  were  but  presumed  from  tliat 
example,  as  in  the  otlier  instances  mentioned.  This  record  is  but  an  intimation  re- 
specting such  a  duty :  yet  an  intimation  of  that  sort  was,  we  contend,  imperative. 

p  Gen.  i.  27.  ii.  24.  v.  2.     Mai.  ii.  15.     Matt,  xix,  4,  5.     Mark  x.  6. 

q  Col.  ii.  11,  12.   Rom.  iv.  11, 16.  Gal.  iii.  7;        r  Matt,  xviii.  3. 

s  Mark  x.  14.    Matt.  xix.  14.    Luke  xviiL  16.        t  Acts  xvi.  15,  33.    1  Cor.  i  IG- 

i\  1  Cor.  vii.  14. 

V  John  XX.  1,  26.    Acts  ii.  1—4.  xx.  7.     1  Cor.  xvi.  2.    Rev.  i  10. 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED  BY   SCRIPTDRE.  11 

Now,  to  apply  this  body  of  reasoning :  Is  it  claiming  too  muchj 
if  the  above  illustrations  be  duly  weighed,  to  assert  that  the  mere 
example  of  the  apostolical  Church  in  regard  to  the  model  of  the 
sacred  ministry  is  obligatory,  as  an  intimation  of  the  divine  will, 
without  any  explicit  enactment  ?  And  if  that  example,  as  de- 
duced from  Scripture,  be  episcopacy,  nay,  be  episcopacy  rather 
than  parity — if  the  balance  of  sound  interpretation  favour  epis- 
copacy ever  so  little  more  than  any  other  scheme — will  the  duty 
of  conforming,  if  possible,  to  that  ministry  be  evaded  ?  can 
such  conformity  be,  in  this  case,  refused  in  foro  conscientice. 
animoque  integro  7 

The  above  remarks,  if  allowed  their  due  force,  will  greatly 
simplify  the  controversy  before  us,  and  will  help  us  to  investi- 
gate the  bearing  of  Scripture  upon  it,  with  a  clear  judgment  and 
an  unsophisticated  love  of  truth.  Let  then  all  extraneous  topics 
be  now^  forgotten ;  let  none  of  them  again  make  their  appearance 
in  this  discussion. 

II.  Proceeding  to  the  second  department  of  our  essay — an 
exhibition  of  the  scriptural  evidence  relating  to  this  controver- 
sy— we  begin  by  stating  the  precise  point  at  issue.  Passing  by 
the  feeble  claim  of  lay-ordination  and  a  lay-ministry,  which,  we 
suppose,  will  scarcely  pretend  to  rest  on  either  scriptural  com- 
mand or  example,  we  consider  this  issue  as  between  two  systems 
only,  episcopacy,  and  parity  or  the  presbyterian  ministry.^ 
Parity  declares  that  there  is  but  one  order  of  men  authorized  to 
minister  in  sacred  things,  all  in  this  order  being  of  equal  grade, 
and  having  inherently  equal  spiritual  rights.  Episcopacy  de- 
clares that  the  Christian  ministry  was  established  in  three  orders^ 
called,  ever  since  the  apostolic  age,  Bishops,  Presbyters  or  Elders, 
and  Deacons ;  of  which  the  highest  only  has  the  right  to  ordain 
and  confirm,  that  of  general  supervision  in  a  diocese,  and  that 
of  the  chief  administration  of  spiritual  discipline,  besides  enjoy- 
ing all  the  powers  of  the  other  grades.  The  main  question  be 
ing  thus  concerning  the  superiority  of  Bishops,  and  the  rights 
of  the  next  order  being  restricted  only  so  much  as  not  to  be  in- 
consistent with  those  of  the  highest,  we  need  not  extend  our 
investigation  of  Scripture  beyond  what  is  requisite  for  this  grand 
point.  If  we  cannot  authenticate  the  claims  of  the  episcopal 
office,  we  will  surrender  those  of  our  Deacons,  and  let  all  power 
be  confined  to  the  one  office  of  Presbyters.  But,  if  we  can  esta- 
blish the  rights  of  our  highest  grade  of  the  ministry,  there  can 
be  little  dispute  concerning  the  degrees  of  sacred  authority  as- 
signed by  us  to  the  middle  and  lower  grades.  This  is  a  further 
clearing  of  our  argument,  not  indeed  from  extraneous  or  irrele- 
vant matter,  but  from  questions  which  are  comparatively  unim- 
portant. 

w  Other  denominations  besides  those  called  Presbyterians  practise  presbyterian 
nrdination,  as  the  Congregationalists,  Baptists,  Ac.  The  ordination  also  of  tie  Lu- 
therans and  Methodists  is  presbyterian,  Luther  and  Wesley  (and  Dr.  Coke,  the 
source  of  Methodist  orders  in  this  country)  having  only  been  Presbyters. 


12  EPISCOPACY   TESTED  BT  SCRIPTURE. 

The  main  issue  then  is— whether  Presb)rters  (or,  more  strictly, 
Presbyters  alone)  have  a  scriptural  right  to  ordain,  or  whether 
the  agency  of  a  minister  of  higher  grade  than  Presbyters  is  not 
essential  to  the  due  performance  of  that  act  ?  Whichever  way 
this  great  issue  be  decided,  all  subordinate  questions  go  with  it, 
if  not  necessarily,  yet  because  they  will  no  longer  be  worth  con- 
tending for,  by  either  party. 

As  some  readers  of  this  essay  may  not  be  familiar  with  the 
episcopal  controversy,  it  is  proper  to  advert  to  the  fact,  that  the 
name  "Bishop,"  which  now  designates  the  highest  grade  of  the 
ministry,  is  not  appropriated  to  that  office  in  Scripture.  That 
name  is  there  given  to  the  middle  order,  or  Presbyters ;  and  all 
that  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  concerning  "  Bishops,"*  (in- 
cluding, of  course,  the  words  "  overseers,"  and  "  oversight,"^ 
which  have  the  same  derivation,)  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining 
to  that  middle  grade.  The  highest  grade  is  there  found  in 
those  called  "  Apostles,"^  and  in  some  other  individuals,  as  Titus, 
Timothy,*  and  the  "angels"  of  the  seven  Churches  in  Asia 
Minor,  who  have  no  official  designation  given  them  ;  all  which 
positions  will  be  made  good  in  the  progress  of  this  essay.  It 
was  after  the  apostolic  age,  that  the  name  "  Bishop"  was  taken 
from  the  second  order  and  appropriated  to  the  first ;  as  we  learn 
from  Theodoret,  one  of  the  fathers.^  At  first  view,  this  difficulty 
respecting  the  names  of  the  sacred  orders  may  appear  formida- 
ble ;  but,  if  we  can  find  the  thing  sought,  i.  e.  an  office  higher 
than  that  of  Presb>i;ers  or  Eldei*s,  we  need  not  regard  its  naiiie. 
Irregularity  in  titles  and  designations  is  of  so  frequent  occur- 
rence, yet  occasions  so  little  actual  confusion,  that  it  ought  not 
to  be  viewed  as  a  real  difficulty  in  the  case  before  us.  Examples 
to  this  effect  crowd  upon  us.  The  original  meaning  of '  emperor' 
(imperator)  was  only  a  general,  but  it  was  afterwards  appro- 
priated to  the  monarch ;  and  the  original  meaning  of  '  Bishop' 
was  only  a  Presbyter,  but  the  name  passed  from  that  middle 
grade  to  the  highest.  There  are,  again,  the  '  president'  of  the 
United  States,  'presidents'  of  colleges,  and  '  presidents'  of  soci- 
eties ;  there  are  the  '  governor'  of  a  commonwealth,  '  governors' 
of  hospitals,  and  the  '  governor'  of  a  jail ;  there  are  '  ministers' 
of  state,  and  '  ministers'  of  religion  ;  there  are  '  provosts'  of  col- 
leges, and  '  provosts-martial  i'  there  are  '  elders'  (senators)  in  a 

I  Philip  i.  1.  1  Tim.  iii.  I,  2.  Tit.  i.  7.  In  1  Pet.  iL  25.  tJie  word  "bishop"  is 
figuratively  applied  to  our  Saviour  ;  as  "  minister"  [deacon]  is  in  Rom.  xv.  8  ;  and 
"apostle"  m  Heb.  iii  1.  It  is  worthy  of  note,  that  in  the  last  passage,  "  apostle  and 
Iiigh  priest"  are  coupled  together,  as  "  bishop  and  shepherd,"  or  pastor,  are  in  the 
first 

y  Acts  XX.  28.     1  Pet  v.  2. 

z  That  the  apostles  alone  ordained  will  be  proved.  In  1  Cor.  iv.  19^22 ;  v.  3 — 8. 
2  Cor.  ii  6;  vii.  12;  x.  8;  xiii.  2,  10;  and  1  Tim.  i.  20,  are  recorded  inflictions  and 
remissions  of  disciplive  performed  by  an  Apostle,  or  threatenings  on  his  part,  although 
there  must  have  been  Eldera  in  Corinth,  and  certainly  were  in  Ephesus. 

a  Timothy  is  iisually  supposed  not  to  have  the  name  "  apostle"  given  to  him  in 
Scripture,  and  our  main  argument  conforma  to  that  supposdtion, 

b  See  Note  A. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  13 

legislature,  '  elders'  (aldermen)  in  a  city  government,  '  elders' 
(Presbyters)  in  the  Churcli,  and  lay  'elders'  in  some  denomina- 
tions ;  there  were  '  consuls'  in  Rome  and  in  France  who  were 
supreme  civil  magistrates,  and  there  are  '  consuls'  who  are  mere 
commercial  agents  ;  there  are  '  captains'  with  a  certain  rank  in 
the  army  or  militia,  '  captains'  witii  much  higher  rank  in  the 
navy,  and  '  captains'  with  no  legal  rank  ;  in  France,  '  monsieur' 
and  '  madame'  are  (or  were)  among  the  highest  titles  in  the 
court,  and  are  also  the  common  appellation  of  respect  among  all 
ranks  of  the  people.  Here,  one  would  say,  is  an  almost  un- 
limited confusion  of  names  or  designations  ;  yet  this  confusion 
is  but  apparent ;  there  is  no  real  or  practical  difficulty  in  the  use 
of  them ;  custom  renders  it  all  easy  and  clear.  So,  a  little  re- 
flection and  practice  will  enable  any  of  our  readers  to  look  in 
Scripture  for  the  several  sacred  offices^  independently  of  the 
names  there  or  elsewhere  given  them.  Let  us  say,  in  analogy 
with  some  of  the  above  examples,  that  there  are  Bishops  of 
parishes  and  Bishops  of  dioceses  ;  and  when  we  find  in  the  New 
Testament  the  name  "  Bishop,"  we  must  regard  it  as  meaning  the 
Bishop  of  a  parish,  or  a  Presbyter ;  but  the  Bishop  of  a  diocese,* 
or  the  highest  grade  of  the  ministry,  we  must  there  seek,  not 
under  that  name,  and  independently  of  any  name  at  all.  We 
are  inquiring  for  the  thing,  the  fact,  an  order  higher  than  Pres 
byters :  the  name  is  not  worth  a  line  of  (controversy. 

There  was  at  least  as  much  difference  between  the  inferior 
kings,  Herod,  Archelaus,  and  Agrippa,  and  the  supreme  king 
Cesar,*'  as  there  is  between  the  Presbyter-bishops  of  Scripture 
and  the  Bishops  who  succeed  the  Apostles  ;  the  mere  title 
"  king,"  common  to  all  these,  was  far  from  implying  that  they 
were  all  of  one  grade. 

One  irregularity  in  regard  to  the  application  of  names  is  par- 
ticularly worthy  of  notice.  The  word  "  sabbath"  is  applied  in 
Scripture  to  only  the  Jewish  day  of  rest ;  by  very  common  use 
however  it  means  the  Lord's  day.  Now,  "  the  sabbath"  is  abo- 
lished by  Christianity,  and  the  observance  of  it  discounten«anced;^ 
yet  ministers  of  Christian  denominations  are  constantly  urging 
their  Christian  flocks  to  keep  "  the  sabbath,"  Does  any  confu- 
sion of  the  mind  result  from  this  confusion  of  names  1  we  sup- 
pose not.  All  concerned  understand,  that  in  Scripture  the  word 
means  the  Jewish  sabbath,  while  out  of  Scripture  the  same  word 
is  commonly  applied  to  the  Christian  sabbath.  Let  the  same 
justice  be  done  to  the  word  "  Bishop,"  In  Scripture,  it  means  a 
Presbyter,  properly  so  called.  Out  of  Scripture,  according  to 
the  usage  next  to  universal  of  all  ages  since  the  sacred  canon 
was  closed,  it  means  that  sacerdotal  order,  higher  than  Presby- 
ters, which  is  found  in  Scripture  under  the  title  of  "  Apostle."— 

c  One  having  power  to  govern  many  churches  and  clergymen,  whether  fixed  \/ 
a  diocese  or  not. 

d  Matt.  ii.  1,  22.     Acts  xxvi.  2,     xvii.  7.     John  xix.  15. 
c  Col.  ii.  16,  17.     Gal.  iv.  10. 

2 


14  EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE. 

When  a  Christian  teacher  who  enjoins  the  observance  of  the 
day  which  he  calls  "  the  sabbath"  is  asked  for  his  New-Testa- 
ment authority,  he  has  to  exclnde  all  the  passages  which  contain 
that  word,  giving  them  a  different  application,  and  go  to  other 
passages  wiiich  do  not  contain  it ;  and  he  argues  that  he  seeks 
the  tking-,  not  the  name.  And,  when  we  Episcopalians  are  ask- 
ed for  inspired  authority  for  "  Bishops,"  we  do  the  very  same  ; 
we  give  a  different  application  to  the  passages  which"  contain 
that  W0rd,  and  build  on  other  passages,  which  teach  the  fact  of 
the  existence  of  episcopacy,  M'ithout  that  appellation.  Thus 
secured  by  an  example  which  is  in  high  esteem  with  our  oppo- 
nents generally,  may  we  not  hope  that  they  will  withhold  their 
censure  from  this  portion  of  our  argument  ? 

Another  irregularity  of  the  same  kind  occurs  in  regard  to  the 
word  "  Elder."  It  is  sometimes  used  for  a  minister  or  clergyman 
of  any  grade,  higher,  middle,  or  lower  •/  but  it  more  strictly 
signifies  a  Presbyter.^  Many  words  have  both  a  loose  and  a 
specific  meaning.  The  word  "  angel"  is  often  applied  loosely  ;•» 
but  distinctively  it  means  certain  created  spirits.  The  word 
"  God"  is  applied  to  angels,'  and  idols,"^  and  human  personages 
or  magistrates  ;'  but  distinctively  it  means  the  Supreme  Being. 
The  word  "  Deacon"  means  an  ordinary  servant,  a  servant  of 
God  in  secular  affairs,  and  any  minister  of  Christ  ;  but  a  Chris- 
tain  minister  of  the  lower  grade  is  its  specific  meaning.'"  So 
with  the  word  "  Elder ;"  it  is  sometimes  applied  to  the  clergy  of 
any  grade  or  grades ;  l3ut  its  appropriate  application  is  to  minis- 
ters of  the  second  or  middle  order.  The  above  remarks,  it  is 
hoped,  will  enable  those  who  feel  an  interest  in  consulting  Scrip- 
ture on  the  subject  before  us,  to  do  so  without  any  embarrass- 
ment from  the  apparent  confusion  of  official  names  or  titles. 

To  this  appeal  to  Scripture  in  regard  to  the  question  between 
episcopacy  and  parity,  we  now  proceed. 

That  the  apostles  ordained,  all  agree :  that  Elders  (Presbyters) 
did,  we  deny.  We  open  this  branch  of  our  argument  with  the 
remark,  that — Apostles  and  Elders  (distinctively  so  called)  had 
not  equal  power  and  rights.  And  we  demonstrate  this  proposi- 
tion from  Scripture  in  the  following  manner. — These  two  classes 
of  ministers  are  distinguished  from  each  other  in  the  passages 
which  speak  of  them  as  "  Apostles  and.  Elders,""  or  M'hich  enu- 
merate "  Apostles  and  Elders  and  brethren,"  or  the  laity. «  If 
"  priests  and  levites,"  if  "  Bishops  and  Deacons,"?  are  allowed 

f  Apostles  are  called  '  Elders'  in  I  Pet  v.  1.  2  John  1,  and  3  John  1.  Deacons 
are  certainly  included  in  that  designation  in  1  Tim.  v.  19.,  and  probably  in  Acts  xiv. 
23.  xxi.  18.  and  James  v.  14.  and  possibly  in  Acts  xi.  30. 

g  Acts  XV.  6,  23.     Tit.  i  5.     Acts  xx.  17.     1  Pet.  t.  1. 

h  Acts  xii.  15.     Rev  i.  20.  ix.  14. 

i  Deut  X.  17.     Pa.  xcvii.  7.  cxxxvi.  2. 

k  Exod.  XI.  3    xxiii.  21,  &c. 

1  Exod.  vil  1.  xxii.  28.     Ps.  IxxxiL  1,  6.  cxxxviil  1.     John  x.  35. 

m  Sec  Parkhurst  on  AiaKovoi.  n  Acts  xv.  2,  4,  6,  22 ;  xvi  4. 

o  Acts  XV.  23.  P  Philip  i.  1. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCRIFTQRE.  .        15 

to  be  distinct  orders,  if '-  Apostles  and  brethren,"'^  are  also  allow- 
ed to  be  distinct  orders,  then  on  the  same  principle,  that  the  con- 
junction is  not  exegetical,  "  Apostles  and  Elders"  may  fairly  be 
accounted  distinct  orders  likewise.  And  as,  in  the  expression 
*•  Apostles  and  Elders  and  brethren,"  severalty  is  unquestionably 
implied  between  the  latter  of  these  three  classes  and  the  others, 
it  must  as  clearly  be  intended  between  the  former  two.  Apos- 
tles were  therefore  one  class,  and  Elders  another  class,  just  as 
the  laity  were  a  third  class. — Now,  the  Apostles  were  not  thus 
distinguished  because  they  were  appointed  by  Christ  personally; 
for  some  are  named  "  Apostles"  in  Scripture  who  were  not  thus 
appointed,  as  Matthias,  Barnabas,  and  probably  James  the  bro- 
ther of  the  LoRD,^"  all  ordained  by  merely  human  ordainers ; 
Silvanus  also  and  Timothy  are  called  "  Apostles  f^  and,  besides 
Andronicus  and  Junia,  others  could  be  added  to  the  list.*  Nor 
were  the  Apostles  thus  distinguished  because  they  had  seen  our 
liORD  after  his  resurrection;  for  "five  hundred  brethren"  saw 
him."  And,  though  the  twelve  Apostles  were  selected  as  special 
witnesses  of  the  resurrection,  yet  others  received  that  appellation 
who  were  not  thus  selected,  as  Timothy,  Silvanus,  Andronicus, 
Junia,  &c.  Nor  were  the  Apostles  thus  distinguished  because 
of  their  power  of  working  miracles  ;  for  Stephen  and  Philip, 
who  were  both  Deacons,  are  known  to  have  had  this  power.^ — 
It  follows,  therefore,  or  will  not  at  least  be  questioned,  that  the 
Apostles  were  distinguished  from  the  Elders  because  they  were 
superior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights.''  And,  con- 
sidering the  nature  of  inherent  rights — that  they  cannot  (ex-cept 
in  the  way  of  punitive  discipline)  be  taken  away  or  justly  sus- 
pended, but  are  always  valid — we  do  not  allow  that  this  superi- 
ority of  the  Apostles  was  but  transient,  that  they  kept  full  power 
from  the  Elders  for  a  time,  and  conceded  it  to  them  afterwards: 
"What  is  given  in  ordination,  is  given  unreservedly  :  and,  as  it  is 
never  ;except  for  discipline)  retracted,  or  suspended,  or  modified 


q  Acts  xi.  1. 

r  Acts  i.  26 ;  xiv.  4,  14.  Gal.  L  19.  Compare  the  latter  with  Mark  vi.  3,  and 
John  vii.  5 ;  and  see  Hammond  on  St.  James'  epistle,  and  Bishop  White  on  the 
Catechism,  p.  431. 

6  See  1  Thess.  ii.  6,  compared  with  i.  1.  Paul,  Silvanus,  (or  Silas,)  and 
Timothy,  are  all  included  as  "Apostles."  In  verse  18,  Paul  speaks  of  himself  indi- 
vidually,  not  probably  before.  It  is  not  unusual,  indeed,  for  St.  Paul  to  use  the 
plural  number  of  himseJf  only  ;  but  the  words  "Apostles"  and  "ourownsow^" 
(verse  8.)  being  inapplicable  to  the  singular  use  of  the  plural  number,  show  that  the 
three  whose  names  are  at  the  head  of  this  epistle,  are  here  spoken  of  jointly.  And 
thus,  Silas  and  Timothy  are,  with  Paul,  recognized,  in  this  passage  of  Scriptm-e,  aa 
"  Apostles." 

t  It  will  here  be  sufficient  to  remark,  that  in  2  Cor.xi.  13,  and  Rev.  ii.  2,  "false 
Apostles"  are  spoken  of  These  could  not  have  been,  or  have  pretended  to  be,  any 
of  the  eleven,  or  of  the  five  next  above  mentioned,  or  Paul.  Their  assuming  there- 
fore the  title  of  '  Apostles'  shows  that  there  were  enough  others  who  had  this  title  to 
make  their  pretended  claim  to  it  plausible.  And  those  others  must,  have  been  ordain- 
ed, not  by  Christ,  but  by  vien  who  had  his  commission. — Calvin  allows  Arv 
dronicus  and  Junia  (Rom.  xvi.  7.)  to  have  been  Apostles.   Instit.  b.  IV.  c.  iii.  sect.  5. 

Ii  1  Cor.  XV.  6.  v  Acts  vi.  8  j  viii.  6.  w  See  note  z,  on  page  12, 


16 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE. 


by  the  giver  or  givers,  and  particularly,  as  in  the  case  o'  the 
first  "  Elders"  there  is  no  record,  and  no  evidence  whatever,  of 
any  public  decree  or  private  agreement  relating  to  such  a  re- 
traction, or  suspension,  or  modification,  we  cannot  but  regard 
that  theory  as  mere  hypothesis  ;  and  against  the  taking  for 
granted  of  any  mere  hj'^pothesis,  all  sound  reasoning  protests. — 
We  repeat,  therefore,  that  the  "  Apostles  and  Elders"  were  of 
distinct  orders  j  as  truly  so,  as  -^vere  the  "  brethren"  or  laity  a 
third  class,  different  from  both  the  others. 

If  these  views  of  Scripture  and  of  the  nature  of  inherent  rights 
of  office,  be  allowed,  as  we  think  they  ought  to  be,  tlien  we  have 
proved  in  favour  of  episcopacy,  tliat  there  was  originally  a 
sacred  oflice  superior  to  that  of  "  Elders"  or  Presbyters.  And 
this  is  substantiating  nearly  the  whole  episcopal  claim. 

But  the  defenders  of  parity  reject  these  our  views  of  Scripture 
and  of  ©flicial  rights,  and  build  tiieir  system  on  the  theory  which 
we  have  pronounced  to  be  mere  hypothesis.  While  they  grant 
the  superiority  of  the  Apostles,  they  contend  that  the  subordination 
of  the  Elders  was  but  a  transient  regulation,  required  by  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  then  new  Church  ;  and  that  as  churches  became 
settled,  the  whole  ministerial  power  rested  in  the  Elders,  no  part 
of  it  being  any  lonsrer  withheld  from  them.  The  proof  they 
allege  is,  that  the  ""^Elders"  are  said  in  the  New  Testament  to 
have  ordained  and  exercised  full  government  and  discipline.  In 
answer  we  assert,  1.  that  there  is  no  scriptural  evidence  that 
"Elders"  ever  obtained  or  exercised  the  right  [or  the  complete 
right]  of  ordination  ;  but  that,  2.  there  was  continued,  as  had 
begun  in  tlie  Apostles,  an  order  of  ministers  superior  to  the 
Elders.  Both  these  assertions  we  can  prove.  And  under  the 
latter  head  it  will  appear  that  Elders  did  not  exercise  discipline 
over  the  clergy. 

I.  There  is  no  scriptural  evidence  that  mere  Elders  [Presby« 
ters  I  ordained. 

Excluding  a  few  unavailing  appeals  to  Scripture  made  by 
some  of  our  opponents,  but  which  we  think  will  be  allowed  to 
have  the  effect  of  weakening  their  cause,*  there  are  but  two  pas- 
sages which  can  even  plausibly  be  claimed  in  favour  of  presby- 
terian  ordination.  Yet  by  neither  of  these  passages  can  that 
practice  be  substantiated. 

The  first  is  Acts  xiii.  1,  2,  3.  Five  persons  called  "  prophets 
and  teachers,"  at  Antioch,  among  whom  Barnabas  is  named  first, 
and  Saul  last,  are  directed  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  "  separate  me 
Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  icorA:  whereuntolhave  called  them;" 
which  the  other  three  accordingly  did,  by  fosting  and  prayer, 
and  the  imposition  of  hands,  and  then  sent  them  away.  This 
transaction  is  sometimes  presumed  to  have  been  the  ordination 
of  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  the  one  sacred  order  of  parity ;  and  as 
it  was  performed  by  those  who  were  only  "  prophets  and  teach- 

X  i\s  the  facts,  that  there  was  more  than  one  ordainer  in  Acts  i.  26.  and  xir.  23L 
The  answer  is,  that  the  ordainers  were  Apostles,  not  mere  Presbyter.s. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  17 

ers,"  it  is  claimed  as  a  scriptural  example  of  presbylerian  ordi- 
nation. But  this  claim  may  be  unanswerably  refuted.  1.  Bar- 
nabas and  Saul  are  themselves  here  called  "  prophets  and  teach- 
ers," and  are  said  to  have  "  ministered  to  the  Lord,"  as  well  as 
the  other  three ;  of  course,  if  these  three  were  in  orders,  the 
other  two  were  likewise,  before  this  laying  on  of  hands.  This 
transaction,  therefore,  if  an  ordination,  must  have  been  a  second 
and  of  course  higher  one ;  which  is  inconsistent  with  parity. 
If  it  was  not  an  ordination,  as  it  certainly  was  not,  it  was  a  mere 
setting  apart  of  those  two  Apostles  to  a  particular  field  of  duty, 
which  has  no  bearing  on  the  question  before  us.  2.  Paul  had 
been  a  preacher  long  before  this  occurrence,''  and  Barnabas 
also  ;^  which  facts,  together  with  that  of  their  "  ministering  to 
the  Lord,"  as  already  mentioned,  are  proof  positive  that  they 
held  the  sacred  commission  before  this  laying  on  of  hands: 
which  of  course,  we  repeat,  must  have  been  either  a  second  and 
higher  ordination,  which  is  fatal  to  parity,  or  else  no  ordination, 
but  only  a  separation  to  a  particular  field  of  duty,  to  a  special 
"  work."  3.  That  this  transaction  at  Antioch  related  only  to 
a  special  missionary  "  work,"  will  be  found  sufficiently  clear  by 
those  who  will  trace  Paul  and  Barnabas  through  that  work,  from 
Acts  xiii.  4.  to  xiv.  26.  where  its  completion  is  recorded — "  and 
thence  sailed  to  Antioch,  from  whence  they  had  been  recom  ■ 
mended  to  the  grace  of  God  for  the  \Dork  which  ihey  fulfilled^ 
This  "  work,"  their  missionary  tour,  being  "  fulfilled,"  all  was 
fulfilled  that  had  been  required  by  the  Holy  Ghost  when  he  had 
them  "  separated,"  or  "  recommended  to  the  grace  of  God," 
"  for  the  work  to  which  he  had  called  them."  This  call,  there- 
fore, this  separation,  this  work^  related  only  to  a  particular  mis- 
sion.  And  this  laying  on  of  hands  was  no  ordination,  but  a 
lesser  ceremony,  which  has  no  bearing  on  the  controversy 
between  parity  and  episcopacy.  4.  The  most  explicit  proof  that 
this  was  not  an  ordination,  is  found  in  Gal.  i.  1.  where  Paul  de- 
clares himself  to  be  "  an  Apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  by  man, 
but  by  Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father."  Not  of  men,  neither 
bi/  man  :  is  not  such  language  an  absolute  exclusion  of  all  Imman 
agency  in  Paul's  ordination  ?  What  other  language  could  add 
to  its  strength?  None  but  that  which  immediately  followsi^^y 
Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father."  Paul  having  been  made  an 
Apostle  by  the  Saviour  in  person,  when  he  appeared  to  him  on  the 
road  to  Damascus,*  it  could  not  have  been  that  the  transaction  at 
Antioch  was  his  ordination.'' — And  if  in  his  case  that  ceremony 

y  Acts  ix.  20—22,  27—29.  z  Acts  xj.  23,  26.        a  Acts  xxvi.  16,  17,  IS. 

b  The  following  additional  proofs  are  worthy  of  notice.  1.  In  Rom.  i.  5.  1  Cor. 
i.  17.  and  1  Tim.  i.  1.  Paul  asserts  that  his  apostolical  commission  was  fiom  Christ, 
2.  In  the  first  verses  respectively  of  1  Cor.  2  Cor.  Ephes.  Col.  and  2  Tim.  he  de- 
clares himself  an  Apostle  "  through"  or  "by  the  will  of  God."  3.  In  Gal.  i.  17. 
spejJcing  of  the  period  "  immediately"  after  his  conversion,  he  says  that  he  went  not 
to  those  who  "were  Apostles  before  him;"  of  course  he  r^arded  himself  aa  an 
Apostle  at  that  period,  and  from  the  moment  that  Christ  had  appeared  to  him. 
1  In  1  Tim.  ii.  7.  he  asserts  his  apostleship  with  a  strong  asseveration — "  whc-e- 

2* 


18  EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY  SCRIPTURE. 

meant  not  ordination,  it  of  course  meant  it  not  in  the  case  of 
Barnabas.  When  the  latter  had  been  made  an  Apostle,  we  know 
not ;  neither  do  we  know  when  James  the  brother  of  the  Lor^, 
Silvanus,  Timothy,  &c.  were  admitted  to  that  office. 

Tliis  first  claim  to  Scripture  in  behalf  of  presbyterian  ordina- 
tion cannot  therefore  be  substantiated  ;  inasmuch  as  an  act  of 
ordination  is  not,  and  cannot  be  implied  in  the  passage  appealed 
to.  Should  any  mink  otherwise,  they  must  not  only  refute  the 
above  arguments,  but  make  it  appear  also  from  Scripture  that 
the  supposed  ordainers  were  mere  Presbyters ;  for  the  appella- 
tions "  prophsts  and  teachers"  are  far  from  settling  this  point. 
If  Barnabas  and  Paul,  to  whom  those  titles  are  given,  are  to  be 
regarded  as  laymen  about  to  be  ordained,  why  not  regard  the 
other  three  as  laymen  also,  holding  a  lay  ordination?  the  one 
may  as  well  be  taken  for  granted  as  the  other ;  for  we  read 
that  laymen  and  even  lay- women  "  prophesied"  in  the  age  of 
inspiration. *=  Or  if  the  three  supposed  ordainers  called  "prophets 
and  teachers"  were  clergymen,  they  may  have  been  Apostles, 
superior  to  Elders,  since  Silas  is  called  both  a  "  prophet"  and 
an  "  Apostle"'^  and  the  prophets  are  called  the  ''  brethren"  of  the 
Apostle  John;«  the  Apostle  Paul  calls  himself  a  "  teacher."^  Be- 
sides ;  it  has  been  shown  that  Paul,  here  classed  with  "  prophets 
and  teachers,"  was  also  at  this  time  an  Apostle ;  and  does  not  this 
fact  afford  presumptive  argument  that  the  other  four  whose 
names  stand  above  his  in  the  list  contained  in  the  passage,  were 
also  of  apostolic  rank?  In  view  of  these  many  difficulties,  we 
may  securely  affirm,  that  it  is  impossible  to  bring  any  evidence 
whatever  that  this  transaction  at  Antioch  was  an  ordination  by 
Presbyters.  We  have,  indeed,  shown  that  it  was  not  an  ordina- 
tion of  any  kind.  And  we  therefore  dismiss  the  claim  of  non- 
episcopalians  to  this  passage  of  the  New  Testament. 

Only  one  other  passage  is  claimed  for  presbyterian  ordination 
— "  neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by 
prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery?'' 
(1  Tim.  iv.  14.)  This  is  regarded  by  our  non-episcopal  brethren 
as  the  record  of  a  presbyterian  ordination.  Let  us  inquire,  how- 
ever, whether  the  transaction  \oas  an  ordination  ?  and  whether, 
if  so,  it  was  a  presbyterian  ordination? 

Was  the  laying  on  of  hands  on  Timothy  here  mentioned,  an 

unto  I  am  ordained  a  preacher  and  an  Apostle,  (/  speak  the  truth  in  Christ  and 
lie  not,)  &c."  Had  his  ordination  been  performed  by  men,  it  would  have  been  well 
known,  as  in  ordinary  cases ;  had  it  been  performed,  as  alleged,  at  Antioch,  it  would 
have  had  peculiar  publicity,  and  such  a  mode  of  asserting  it  would  have  been  out  ot 
place  and  even  improper  in  St.  Paul.  But  his  commission .  having  been  given  him 
by  Christ  personally,  and  the  men  present  at  the  time  not  understanding  the  words 
then  pronounced,  (Acts  xxii.  9.)  it  was  both  natural  and  correct,  in  declaring  that  he 
was  thug  commissioned,  to  use  solemn  asseverations  and  pledge  his  veracity.  Thia 
was  enough  for  ordinary  purposes.  The  final  proof  of  his  d^Iaration  and  his  asseve- 
rations was  the  performance  of  miracles. 

e  1  Cor.  xi.  5.    Acts  xix.  6.  and  xxi.  9.  ' 

d  Acts  XV.  32.     1  These,  ii.  6.  comp.  with  L  1. 

eRev.  xxiLS.  fl  Tim,  11.7.    2Tim.i.  lU 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTrRE.  19 

ordination  ?  It  cannot,  at  least,  be  proved.  And,  comparing 
Scripture  with  Scripture,  are  we  not  justified  in  regarding 
it  as  a  transaction  similar  to  the  one  we  have  just  seen  in  the 
case  of  Barnabas  and  Saul?  In  both  cases  there  was  the 
ceremony  of  the  imposition  of  hands.  And  the  dictation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  the  "  prophets"  in  the  one  case,  corresponds  with 
the  "  prophecy,"  or  inspired  designation  of  the  individual  in  the 
other  case ;  a  designation  previously  adverted  to  by  St.  Paul, 
^'  this  charge  I  commit  unto  thee,  son  Timothy,  according  to  the 
prophecies  wliich  went  before  on  thee."^  We  submit  this  view 
of  the  transaction  performed  by  those  called  the  "  presbytery"  to 
the  candid  judgment  of  our  readers.  If  they  should  allow  that 
it  probably  refers  to  an  inspired  separation,  of  one  already  in 
the  ministry,  to  a  particular  field  of  duty — to  the  "  charge  com- 
mitted to  him"  in  form  by  St.  Paul,  corresponding  with  "  the 
work"  to  which  Saul  and  Barnabas  were  separated — a  practice 
which  must  of  course  have  ceased  with  the  gi£t  of  inspiration — 
they  will  see  that  it  was  not  an  ordination  that  was  performed 
by  the  "  presbytery,"  but  only  a  "  recommending  of  Timothy 
to  the  grace  of  God  for  the  work  he  was  to  fulfil."  The  ordina- 
tion of  Timothy  may  be  alluded  to  by  St.  Paul  in  the  second 
epistle,  "  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  on  of 
my  hands."'^  If  so,  it  Avas  an  ordination  by  an  Apostle,  as  is  the 
uniform  record  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament.  If  not, 
then  Timothy's  ordination  is  nowhere  specifically  mentioned, 
but  is  to  be  inferred,  as  in  other  cases :  and,  in  this  view,  both 
these  passages  are  unconnected  with  the  controversy  before  us. 

But  our  non-episcopal  bretliTcn  generally  regard  the  passage 
in  question  as  referring  to  the  ordination  of  Timothy.  Let  us 
meet  them  on  this  ground. 

Was  it  a  presbyterian  ordination  ?  We  first  reply,  that  emi- 
nent authority  has  declared  the  word  "  presbytery"  to  mean  the 
office  to  which  Timothy  was  ordained,  not  the  persons  who 
ordained  him ;  so  that  the  passage  would  read — "  with  the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands  to  confer  the  presbijterate,''^  or  presbytership, 
or  the  clerical  oflice :  in  which  view,  the  ordainer  of  Timothy 
was  St.  Paul  himself,  as  mentioned  in  the  clause  just  quoted 
from  the  second  epistle.  On  this  point,  we  adduce  a  passage 
from  Grotius.  Speaking  of  Presbyters  laying  on  their  hands 
near  those  of  a  Bishop,  he  proceeds — "  I  do  not  dare  to  bring  in 
confirmation  of  this,  that  expression  of  Paul's  of  the  imposition 
of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  because  I  see  that  Jerome,  Am- 
brose, and  other  ancients,  and  Calvin,  certainly  the  chief  of  all 
the  moderns,  interpret '  presftyfermm'  in  that  place  not  an  assem- 
bly, but  the  office  to  which  Timothy  was  promoted  :  and  indeed 
he  who  is  conversant  with  the  councils  and  the  writings  of  the 
fathers,  cannot  be  ignorant  ihaX^ presbyterium,''  as  ^ episcopaius^ 
and  '  diaconatus'  are  the  names  of  offices.    Add  that  it  appears 


g   1  Tim.  i.  18.    See  also  M'Knxght's  note  on  the  passage.  h  2  Tim.,  i,  6. 


20  EPISCOPACY   TESTED   By   SCRIPTURE. 

that  Paul  laid  hands  on  Timothy."'  By  this  interpretation  of 
the  word  "  presbytery" — that  it  means  not  the  ordainers,  but  the 
office  conferred— we  remove  all  appearance  of  discrepancy  be- 
tween that  passage  and  the  one  in  which  Paul  speaks  of  the  im* 
position  of  his  hands.  And,  to  make  the  least  of  the  above  opinion 
of  several  fathers,  and  Calvin,  and  Grotius,  does  not  their  au- 
thority render  doubtful  the  application  of  the  passage  before  us 
to  a  body  of  presbyterian  ordainers  ? — Should  it  be  said,  however, 
that  the  word  "  presbyterate  or  presbytership"  proves  Timothy 
to  have  been  then  orciained  a  Presbyter  merely,  we  would  neu- 
tralize that  argument  by  appealing  to  1  Thess.  ii.  6,  (comp.  with 
i.  1.)  where  he  is  called  an  "Apostle."  We  would  also  advert 
to  the  fact,  that  however  distinct  may  have  been  the  three  above 
Latin  names  for  the  three  grades  of  sacerdotal  office,  those  names 
of  office  were,  in  the  Greek,  and  at  an  earlier  period,  applied 
but  loosely.  At  least,  they  were  so  in  the  New  Testament. 
Thus  we  read,  'i  this  ministry  [deaconship']  and  aposileship'''^ 
for  the  office  to  -which  Matthias  was  admitted :  "  I  am  the  apos- 
tle of  the  Gentiles,  I  magnify  mine  office"  [my  deaconsliip^'] 
"  the  ministry  [^deaconship']  which  I  have  received,"  "  approving 
ourselves  as  the  ministers  [deacons']  of  God,"'  are  passage? 
applied  by  St.  Paul  to  himself ;  we  also  read,  ^'  who  then  is  Paul, 
and  who  is  Apollos,  but  ministers  [deacons']  by  whom  ye  be- 
lieved ;""*  and  "  do  the  work  of  an  evangelist^  make  full  prool 
of  thy  ministry"  [deaconship,]  "  thou  shalt  be  a  good  minister 
I  deaco7i'\  of  Jesus  Christ,"  are  admonitions  addressed  to  Timo- 
thy." These  passages,  not  to  cite  here  other  like  ones,  while 
they  may  be  said  to  go  far  towards  proving  that  if  there  be  only 
one  sacred  order,  it  must  be  the  order  of  Deacons,  answer  irre- 
fragably  all  that  might  be  suggested  to  the  disadvantage  of 
episcopacy  from  the  application  of  the  word  "  presbytery"  to 
the  sacred  office  to  which  Timothy  was  ordained:  since,  ifpre&< 
byterate  or  presbytership  means  that  he  was  but  a  Presbyter, 
deaconship  must  mean  that  lie,  and  Matthias,  and  Paul,  and 
Apollos,  were  but  Deacons.  In  short,  as  all  experienced  inter- 
preters are  aware,  and  as  in  this  controversy  Episcopalians 
always  assert,  we  look  not  to  Scripture  for  official  naines  of  any 
kind,  but  only  for  official  powers  ;  and  Timothy,  we  there  find, 
has  a  higher  degree  of  power  than  the  word  Presbijterium,  as 
distinguished  from  Episcopaius  and  Diaconatus,  would  allow 
him.  The  word  "  presbytery"  then,  according  to  the  mode  ol 
interpretation  now  before  us,  though  it  refer  to  office,  does  not 
designate  a  subdivision  of  office,  but  alludes  generally  to  the 
clerical  office  conferred  on  Timothy. 

But,  granting  to  our  opponents  that  "  the  presbytery"  means 
here,  not  the  office  given  to  Timothy,  but,  as  they  contend,  a 
body  of  Elders,  and  that  his  ordination  is  the  transaction  referred 

i  See  Dr.  Cooke's  Essay,  p.  192.  [363,  2d  ed.\  k  Acts  i.  25. 

1  Rom.  xi.  13.     Acts  xx.  24.     2  Cor.  vi.  4.  ml  Cor.  hi.  5. 

n  2  Tim.  iv.  5,     1  Tim.  iv.  6. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  21 

to — we  again  meet  them  on  the  question,  was  it  a  presbyterian 
ordination  ?  And  here  we  ask — of  whom  was  this  ordaining 
"  presbytery"  composed  ?  for  the  whole  question  centres  in  the 
meaning  of  that  word.  A  presbytery  means  a  body  of  Elders  ; 
and  taken  alone,  it  can  be  interpreted  of  any  kind  of  Elders. 
Those,  for  example,  who  think  they  find  in  Scripture  what  are 
called  ruling-elders,  may  regard  this  presbytery  as  having  been 
made  up  of  them ;  and,  if  they  were  not  contradicted  by  other 
passages  they  might  here  claim  a  shadow  of  proof  for  lay-orders. 
Others  may  assert  that  the  grade  called  Presbyters  made  up 
this  presbytery.  Or,  as  St.  Peter  and  St.  John  call  themselves 
"  Elders,""  this  presbytery  may  have  consisted  of  Apostles.  Or, 
lastly,  it  may  have  been  composed  of  any  two  of  the  kinds 
of  Elders  mentioned,  or  of  ail  the  three  kinds  uniting  in  the 
imposition  of  hands  on  Timothy  ;  there  may  have  been  ruling- 
elders  and  Presbyters,  or  Presbyters  and  one  or  more  Apos- 
tles, or  ruling-elders  and  one  or  more  Apostles,  or  ruling- 
elders  and  Presbyters  and  Apostles.  There  are  then  no  less 
than  seven  modes,  if  we  seek  no  further  evidence,  in  which  this 
"presbytery"  may  have  been  composed.  Or,  if  we  exclude 
ruling-elders,  there  are  three  modes  in  which  it  may  have  been 
formed ;  of  Presbyters  only,  of  Apostles  only,  and  of  one  or 
more  Apostles  and  Presbyters  united.  The  mere  expression 
"  presbytery"  therefore,  does  not  explain  itself ^  and  cannot  of 
itself  be  adduced  in  favour  of  parity. 

If,  however,  it  be  urged,  that  the  specijic  meaning  of  the  word 
"  Elder"  should  have  the  preference,  so  as  to  place  Presbyters 
only  in  this  ordaining  ''  presbytery,*'  we  answer — that  the  spe- 
cijic meaning  of  the  title  of  an  individual  officer  is  far  from 
extending  necessarily  to  the  similar  title  of  a  body  or  an  office. 
We  have  just  noticed  an  objection  kindred  with  this  ;  but  it  may 
not  be  improper  to  add  some  further  illustrations  of  the  uncer- 
tainty of  official  names.  Thus  we  say,  the  Jewish  "  priesthood," 
including  in  that  term,  with  the  priests,  the  superior  order  of 
high-priests,  and  the  inferior  one  of  levites.  Thus  also  we  have 
the  phrases,  "  ministry  [literally  deaconship']  of  reconciliation," 
and  the  expressions  "that  the  ministry  [deaconship']  be  not 
blamed,"  "  seeing  we  have  this  ministry"  [deaconship,]  "  putting 
me  into  the  ministry"  [deaconship;]  and  more  especially 
"  Apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,"  &c.  are  all  said  to  have  been 
given  "for  the  work  of  the  ministry"  [deaconship ;]p  in  all 
which  passages  the  word  deaconship,  ^laKovia,  the  appellation 
strictly  of  a  sacred  body  of  men,  or  of  their  office,  includes,  nay 
signifies  chiefly,  those  who  were  superior  to  Deacons.  The 
word  "presbytery"  therefore,  being  no  more  definite  than 
"  ministry  or  deaconship,"  cannot  explain  itself  in  favour  of  our 
opponents.     It  can  only  be  defined  "  a  body  of  clergymen."'' 

o  1  Pet.  V.  1.     2  John  1.     3  John  1. 

p  2  Cor.  V.  18.     vL  3.     iv.  1.     1  Tim.i.  12.     Ephes.  iv.  11,  12. 

q  The  word  "  presbyterate  or  presbytership"  also  means,  as  just  shown,  nothing 


22  EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTCRE. 

And  these  clergj^men  may  have  been  in  part  or  entirely  Apos- 
tles, who  were  superior  to  Presbyters, 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  we  repeat,  that  this  passage,  z/ it  refer 
to  an  ordination,  cannot  he  interpreted  without  light  from  other 
Scriptures.     To  this  light,  thereibre,  we  refer. 

,  The  "  presbytery,"  we  have  seen,  may  have  consisted  of 
Apostles  only,  or  of  one  or  more  Apostles  joined  with  others. 
In  conformity  with  this  suggestion,  we  find  St.  Paul  writing  to 
Timothy,  "  that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  in  thee  by 
the  putting  on  of  my  hands."'"  Now,  the  same  reasons  which 
make  the  passage  respecting  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery  apply  to  ordination — the  same  reasons  will  make 
this  other  passage,  respecting  the  putting  on  of  PauVs  hands, 
apply  to  that  identical  ceremony ;  unless  indeed  a  second  and 
higher  ordination  be  here  supposed,  M'hich  however  destroys 
parity,  and  which  of  course  parity  cannot  adduce  in  its  own 
behalf.  In  the  ordination,  therefore,  of  Timothy,  Paul  had  at 
least  a  share  ;  that  Apostle  laid  on  his  hands,  whoever  else  be- 
longed to  the  ordaining  "  presbytery."  It  cannot  of  course  be 
claimed  as  a  presbyterian,  but  was  an  apostolic  ordination.  And 
thus  the  allegations  of  our  opponents  from  this  passage,  in  sup- 
port of  the  ordaining  powers  of  mere  "  Elders,"  are  overturned. 
We  have  proved  that  Presbyters  alone  did  not  perform  the  ordi- 
nation, granting  the  transaction  to  have  been  one,  but  that  an 
Apostle  actually  belonged,  or  else  was  added  for  this  purpose, 
to  the  body  called  a  "presbytery. "» 

It  is  worthy  also  of  note,  that  St.  Paul  makes  the  following 
distinction  in  regard  to  his  own  agenc}"^  and  that  of  the  others 
in  this  supposed  ordination — "  hy  the  putting  on  of  my  hands" — 
^'with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery."  Such  a  dis- 
tinction may  justly  be  regarded  as  intimating  that  the  virtue 
of  the  ordaining  act  flo^ved  from  Paul ;  while  the  presbytery, 
or  the  rest  of  that  body  if  he  were  included  in  it,  expressed  only 
consent. 

On  the  whole :  Can  it  be  denied,  that  a  cautious  and  candid 
interpretation  of  the  two  passages  said  to  relate  to  the  ordina- 
tion of  Timothy,  requires  that  a  minister  be  present  who  holds 
the  [ordinary  and  uninspired  portion  of  the]  rank  and  rights  of 
an  Apostle,  to  give  ordaining  power  to  any  body  called  a  pres^ 
by tery  ?  \Vere  there  even  no  explicit  evidence  in  our  favour  in 
the  other  parts  of  Scripture,  the  episcopal  theory  would  be  at 
least  as  good  a  key  as  that  of  parity  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 

more  specific  than  "the  clerical  office."  The  •word  "  bishopric"  (Acts  i.  20.)  has, 
on  the  same  principles,  no  stricter  signification.  The  present  writer  is  not  aware 
of  any  instance  in  Scripture  in  which  the  specific  meaning  of  a  name  of  office  has 
necessarily  the  preference;  perhaps  the  word  " apostleship"  is  an  exception;  it  is 
used  only'of  those  known  to  have  been  Apostles. 

r  2  Tim  i.  6. 

s  Ignatius,  well  known  for  his  zeal  for  episcopacy,  and  martyred  about  the  yea? 
110,  calls  the  Apostles  the  '-'presbytery  of  the  Church."  Episi.  to  the  Philadei' 
phians,  Sect.  5. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   EV   SCRIPTURE.  23 

"  presbytery."  And  considering  the  above  distinction  of  "  by'' 
and  '•  with,"  our  theory  is  obviously  the  better  of  the  two.  Yet 
here  the  non-episcopal  argument  from  Scripture  is  exhausted. 
Its  strongest  proof  has  been  demonstrated  to  be  but  barely  con- 
sistent with  parity,  while  it  is  more  consistent  with  episcopacy. 
We  dismiss  therefore  the  claim  of  our  opponents  to  this,  the 
only  passage  of  Scripture,  besides  the  one  before  dismissed,  to 
which  they  could  raise  any  pretensions. 

Let  our  readers  now  be  reminded,  that  we  before  showed 
"Apostles  and  Elders"  to  have  been  distinct  classes  of  ministers, 
as  distinct  as  were  the  "  brethren"  or  laily  from  both.  That  the 
former  ordained,  is  allowed  on  all  hands,  and  is  clear  from  Scrip- 
ture.' But  w^e  have  now  demonstrated  that  there  is  no  inspired 
authority  for  the  claim  that  mere  Elders  [Presbyters]  ordained — 
none,  at  any  period  of  the  apostolic  age.  Of  course,  there  is  no 
scriptural  proof  that  such  Elders  have  the  right  to  ordain.  To  ad- 
duce evidence  of  their  enjoying  such  a  right,  was  incumbent  on 
parity ;  but  having  failed  to  do  so,  it  cannot  ask  of  us  to  allow  such 
a  right  without  evidence.  It  cannot  be  proved,  and  it  is  not  to 
be  allowed  without  proof,  that  mere  Presbyters  either  performed 
the  ordinations  mentioned  in  Scripture,  or  are  there  said  to 
have  the  right  to  perform  such  acts.  This  position  cannot  be 
overturned. 

2.  All  that  is  now  incumbent  on  episcopacy  is— to  show  that 
the  above  distinction  between  Elders  and  a  grade  superior  to  them, 
in  regard  especially  to  the  power  of  ordaining,  was  so  perse- 
vered in  as  to  indicate  that  it  was  a  permanent  arrangement, 
and  not  designed  to  be  but  temporary  To  this  final  branch  of 
our  argument,  which  is  also  an  independent  and  very  prominent 
argument  for  episcopacy,  we  now  proceed. 

Let  any  one  read  Acts  xx.  28  to  35,  and  consider  well  what  St. 
Paul  there  gives  as  a  charge  to  the  jEZder^  (Presbyters  or  Pres- 
byter-bishops) of  Ephesus.  Then  let  him  read  the  two  epistles  to 
Timothy,  and  reflect  candidly  on  the  charge  which  the  same 
Apostle  gives  to  him  personally,  Timothy  at  Ephesus.  And, 
after  this  comparison  of  the  charges,  let  him  decide  whether 
Scripture  does  not  set  that  one  individual  above  those  Elders, 
in  ecclesiastical  rights,  and  particularly  in  regard  to  the  power 
of  ordaining. — Or,  if  such  an  inquirer  feel  any  doubt  as  to  the 
positiveness  with  which  the  superiority  of  Timothy  is  asserted, 
let  him  conscientiously  determine  what  are  the  intimations  ot 
Scripture  on  this  subject — which  way  the  balance  of  proof  in- 
clines. To  us  the  proof  seems  absolute ;  but  it  is  enough  for 
a  rightly  disposed  mind  that  it  only  preponderate.  Examine 
then,  these  two  portions  of  the  New  Testament  j  and  first,  that 
relating  to  the  Elders. 

In  Acts  XX.  28,  &c.  the  Elders  of  Ephesus  are  charged — to 
take  heed  to  themselves — to  take  heed  to  all  the  flock  o^er  which 

t  Acts  i.  26.     ri.  6.     xiv.  23.     2  Tim.  i.  6. 


24  EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE. 

the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  overseers — to  feed  the  Church 
of  God — and,  remembering  the  Apostle's  warnings  for  three 
years,  to  watch  against  the  grievous  wolves  that  would  assail 
the  flock,  and  against  those  from  among  themselves  who  would 
speak  perverse  things.  These  are  the  four  points  (or  three,  if 
the  second  and  third  be  united)  of  the  admonition  left  with  them 
by  St.  Paul ;  to  which  another  may  be  added,  from  verse  35, 
concerning  industry,  and  charity  to  the  "  weak."  Now,  what 
is  there  in  this  admonition  or  charge  which  shows  that  these 
Elders  had  the  power  of  clerical  dicipline  1  surely  nothing. 
They  are  to  be  cautious  themselves,  and  to  watch  against  false 
teachers;  but  no  power  is  intimated  to  depose  from  oflice 
either  one  of  their  own  number,  or  an  unsound  minister  coming 
among  them.  They  are  to  "  feed,"  or  perhaps  (as  the  word  is 
sometimes  translated)  rule*  the  Church ;  i.  e.  they  are  to  "  tend 
it  as  shepherds."'  The  "Church"  of  course  means  here  the 
"  flock"  before  mentioned,  or  the  laity ;''  for  shepherds  do  not 
tend  or  rule  shepherds,  unless  it  be  that  there  are  superior 
shepherds  among  them,  who  have  received  such  authority  from 
their  common  master  or  employer.  Government  of  the  clergy, 
therefore,  these  Elders  had  not,  as  far  as  appears,  within  their 
own  body.  And  not  a  trace  or  hint  is  there  of  their  having  had 
the  right  to  ordain. 

We  may  here  add,  that  the  right  of  these  Elders  to  govern 
and  ordain  cannot  be  claimed  as  resulting  from  construction  or 
implication;  for  every  passage  in  Scripture  which  asserts  or 
intimates  power  over  the  clergy,  gives  that  power  to  Apostles, 
or  else  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  or  to  the  "  angels"  of  the  seven 
Churches  in  Asia;  and  these  cannot  be  proved  to  have  been 
mere  Presbyters,  but  w'^re,  as  we  have  shown  in  regard  to  the 
Apostles,  and  are  now  .showing  in  regard  to  the  rest,  distinct 
and  superior  oflicers.  Constructive  or  implied  powers  can  only 
be  inferred  in  the  absence  of  positive  evidence ;  and  as  there  is 
positive  evidence  in  other  passages,  nothing  of  implication  can 
be  valid  here.  The  positive  evidence  is  against  parity ;  nor  can 
construction  be  resorted  to  for  its  relief. — Nor  is  a  resort  to  such 
construction  suggested  by  the  spirit  of  Paul's  address  to  these 
Elders,  since  the  theory  which  asks  no  construction  is  quite  as 
congenial  with  its  several  expressions  as  that  which  requires  it. 
On  the  episcopal  theory,  indeed,  there  can  be  no  final  authority 
over  the  clergy  without  a  Bishop  ;  but  it  is  not  contrary  to  that 
theory,  that  Presbyters,  in  such  a  case,  exercise  much  spiritual 
discipline  over  the  laity :  they  may  repel  from  the  communion, 
which  is  a  very  high  act  of  "ruling;"  and,  there  being  no 
Bishop,  there  can  be  no  appeal  from  such  a  sentence.  Among 
lis,  a  diocese  without  a  Bishop  "  rules  the  flock"  in  many  respects 


a  See  Ndle  B. 

V  See  Parkhuhbt  on  votnaivu. 

•w  As  in  Acts  xv.  4,  22.     It  is  simply  possible  tliat  Deacons  are  Included  in  Buch 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  25 

"but  has  no  final  or  executive  authority  over  its  clergy;  and 
Ephesus  was  without  a  Bishop  when  Paul  addressed  the  Elders, 
Timothy  not  having  been  placed  over  that  Church  till  some  time 
afterwards.^  As  therefore  the  episcopal  theory  suits  this  address 
perfectly,  without  a  resort  to  constructive  or  implied  powers, 
such  a  resort  in  behalf  of  the  Elders  is  unnecessary,  is  gratuitous, 
and,  of  course,  is  an  unsound  mode  of  interpretation. 

The  functions  then  of  the  Elders  of  Ephesus,  as  developed  in 
Acts  XX.  were  only  pastoral ;  they  were  to  feed,  tend,  rule,  the 
fock^  and  take  heed  to  them,  and,  watching  for  them,  were  to 
warn  them  against  false  teachers.  As  St.  Pauf  elsewhere  expresses 
the  duty  of  Bishops,  (Presbyter-bishops,)  they  are  to  "  take  care 
of  the  Church  of  GoD;"y  the  "  Church"  meaning  of  course  the 
laity,  as  just  observed  in  regard  to  Acts  xx.  28.  Or,  as  St.  Peter 
expresses  that  duty,  they  are  to  "take  the  oversight"  of  the 
"Jlock^^  which  they  "feed."^  These,  we  believe,  are  all  the 
rights  named  in  Scripture  as  belonging  to  Elders.  Whatever 
higher  privileges  are  there  specified  or  adverted  to  (except  the 
bare  possibility  of  their  having  been  united  with  Paul  in  the 
"  presbytery"  which  is  supposed  to  have  ordained  Timothy) 
are  invariably  ascribed  to  Apostles,  or  to  the  other  persons 
before  mentioned,  as  Timothy,  Titus,  and  the  "angels"  of  the 
seven  Churches. 

Compare  now  with  this  sum  total  of  power  assigned  in  Scrip- 
ture to  mere  Elders  or  Presbyters,  that  of  Timothy  at  Ephesus, 
the  very  city  and  region  in  which  those  addressed  by  Paul  in 
Acts  XX.  resided  and  ministered.  Look  through  the  two  epistles 
addressed  to  that  individual  by  the  great  Apostle,  and  mark  the 
explicit  manner  in  which  the  right  of  governing  the  clergy  and 
of  ordaining  is  ascribed  to  him  personally — every  part  of  both 
epistles  being  addressed  to  him  in  the  singular  number—"  this 
charge  I  commit  unto  thee,  son  Timothy" — "  these  things  write 
I  unto  thee,  that  thoiL  mightest  know  how  to  behave  thyself  in 
the  house  of  God" — "  if  thou  put  the  brethren  in  remembrance 
of  these  things."*  Observe  the  same  address  to  him  in  the  sin- 
gular number  when  clerical  government  and  discipline  are  spo- 
ken of — "  that  ihoit,  mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no 
other  (no  false)  doctrine" — "  against  an  Elder  receive  not  [thou] 
an  accusation,  but  before  two  or  three  witnesses" — "  them  [those 
of  the  Elders  thus  accused]  that  sin,  rebuke  [thou']  before  all, 
that  others  also  may  fear" — "  I  charge  thee  ....  that  thoic 
observe  these  things  [these  rules  of  clerical  discipline,  &c.] 
without  preferring  one  before  another,  doing  nothing  by  par- 
tiality."'' Observe  particularly  his  right  to  ordain — the  qualifi- 
cations of  Bishops  (Presbyter-bishops)  and  Deacons  are  ad- 


X  The  date  of  the  placing  of  Timothy  at  Ephesas  is  discussed  in  M'Knight  on 
the  EptRtles,  Vol.  IV.  p.  156  ;  in  the  Church  Register  for  1827,  Nos.  13  to  17;  and 
ia  the  Protestant  Episcopaliaui  for  May,  1831.  y  1  Tim.  iii.  5. 

z  1  P«t  V.  2.        a  1  Tim.  L  18 ;  iii.  14,  15 ;  iv.  6.  b  1  Tim.  i.  3 ;  r.  19,  20,  2L 

3 


26  EPISCOPACY  TESTED   BY  SCRIPTURE. 

dressed  to  him,  "  these  things  write  I  unto  thee^^'—he  is  after- 
wards admonished,  in  regard  to  the  ordaining  of  these  two  infe- 
rior orders,  "  lay  [thou']  hands  suddenly  on  no  man" — and  again, 
"  the  things  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me,  the  same  commit  tJwic 
to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also,"*^  i.  e.  to 
liien  who  are  both  sound  in  the  faith  and  apt  to  teach.  Observe, 
moreover,  that,  while  to  the  Elders  of  Ephesus  Paul  alludes  to 
ministers  who  would  "  speak  perverse  thmgs^''^^  yet  gives  not  a 
hint  of  their  exercising  discipline  upon  such  offenders,  to  Timo- 
thy he  mentions  that  very  error,  and  in  terms  entirely  equiva- 
lent, as  having  occurred  at  Ephesus,  calling  it  the  "  teaching  of 
other  or  false  doctrine,^^  and  desires  hiin  to  check  it — "  that 
thoic  mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine"— 
and  it  is  afterwards  added,  respecting  the  clergy  who  thus  or 
otherwise  were  in  fault,  "  them  that  sin,  rebuke  thou.^^^  Teach 
ing  "  other  doctrine"  and  speaking  "  perverse  things"  are  one 
and  the  same  offence ;  the  correction  of  it  is  no  where  commit- 
ted to  the  Elders ;  to  Timothy  it  is  here  expressly  committed. 

Is  it  not  evident,  abundantly  evident,  that  Timothy  had  su- 
preme power  over  the  clergy  at  Ephesus,  and  the  full  right  to 
ordain  ?  Comparing  these  many  passages,  and  the  tenor  and 
spirit  of  the  entire  epistles,  with  the  before  cited  address  to  the 
Elders  of  Ephesus,  can  any  one  require  stronger  proof  of  epis- 
copacy, or  stronger  disproof  of  parity  ?  Did  not  the  ministry  at 
Ephesus  consist  of  three  orders— Timothy  first,  the  Elders  (or 
Presbyter-bishops)  ne?vt,  and  Deacons  last  ? — it  clearly  did. 

Compare  again  that  address,  and  all  that  is  recorded  of  mere 
Elders,  with  the  epistle  to  Titus.  Examine  his  powers  in  the 
island  of  Crete.  To  him-  are  specified  the  due  qualifications  of  a 
Presbyter-bishop  or  Elder,^  His  clear  credential  from  the 
Apostle  Paul  is,  "  for  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thoit 
shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  [that 
thou  shouldest]  ordain  Elders  in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed 
thee" — and  again,  "  a  man  that  is  an  heretic,  after  the  first  and 
second  admonition,  [do  thou']  reject:"''  ordination,  admonition, 
and  rejection,  (or  degradation  and  excommunication,)  are  all 
committed  to  Titus  personally.  The  Elders,  as  already  seen, 
had  no  power  given  them  to  "  reject"  those  who  should  "speak 
perverse  things"  or  "  heresy ;"  Titus  had  that  power.'  All  this 
agrees  perfectly  with  the  case  of  Timothy.  And  nothing  like 
it  can  be  shown,  any  where  in  Scripture,  of  any  who  are  there 
distinctively  called  Elders  or  Presbyters.  Is  it  not  clear,  then, 
that  the  recorded  powers  of  Titus  make  him  an  officer  of  a  grade 
superior  to  that  which  we  must  assign,  resting  only  on  the  sa- 
cred record,  to  such  Elders  ?    This  is  episcopacy. 


c  1  Tim.  iii.  1—14.  d  1  Tim.  v.  22.     2  Tim.  ii.  2.  e  Acts  xx.  30. 

f  1  Tim.  i.  3;  v.  20.  g  Tit.  i.  6—9  h  Tit.  i.  5  ;  iii.  10. 

i  The  expression  "perverse  thiji^s,"  the  teachers  of  which  the  Elders  had  no 
power  to  condemn,  agrees  with  that  used  respecting  the  heretic,  "such  is  subverted," 
whom  Titus  had  power  to  reject.     The  words  are,  Suirrpafiiitva  and  e(eaTf>a-KTai. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED   BY   SCRIPTDRE.  27 

Compare,  yet  again,  all  that  is  recorded  of  Elders,  with  the 
epistles  to  the  "  angels"  of  the  seven  Churches  of  Asia>  Each 
of  ^those  Churches  is  addressed,  not  through  its  clergy  at  large, 
but  through  its  "  angel"  or  chief  officer ;  this  alone  is  a  very 
strong  argument  against  parity  and  in  favour  of  episcopacy. 
One  of  those  Churches  was  Ephesus  ;  and  when  we  read  con- 
cerning its  angel,  "  thou  hast  tried  them  which  say  they  are 
Apostles,  and  are  not,  and  hast  found  them  liars,"'  do  we  require 
further  evidence  that  what  Timothy,  the  chief  officer  there,  was 
in  the  year  65,  in  regard  to  the  supreme  right  of  discipline  over 
the  clergy,  the  same  was  its  chief  officer  when  this  book  was 
written,  in  the  year  96 1  Let  us  examine  also  other  passages. 
In  each  of  these  small  epistles,  the  "  angel"  is  made  responsible 
individually  for  the  errors  of  the  respective  Churches,  and  is 
commended  individually  for  their  respective  merits ;  and  this, 
although  there  must  have  been  several  or  many  Elders  in  each 
of  those  Churches,  as  there  were  in  Ephesus  thirty  or  forty  years 
before.™  Observe  the  emphatic  use  of  the  singular  number  in 
the  address  to  each  of  the  angels—"  I  know  thy  works,""  is  the 
clear  and  strong  language  directed  to  them  all  successively,  im- 
plying the  responsibility,  not  of  a  Church  at  large,  or  of  its  cler- 
gy at  large,  but  of  the  head  or  governor  individually.  To  the 
same  effect  we  read,  as  commendations  of  these  angels—"  thou 
boldest  fast  my  name"—"  thou  hast  a  few  names  which  have  not 
defiled  their  garments" — "  I  have  set  before  thee  an  open  door"— 
*'  thou  hast  a  little  strength,  and  hast  kept  my  word"" — and,  on 
the  other  hand,  they  are  thus  rebuked—"  I  have  a  few  things 
against  thee'^ — "  because  thou  hast  them  that  hold  the  doctrine 
of  Balaam" — "  thou  sufferest  that  woman  Jezebel  ...  to  teach, 
&c."— "  if  thou  shalt  not  watch,  I  will  come  on  thee  as  a  thief" 
•— "  thou  art  neither  hot  nor  cold."p  Similar  to  these  are  the 
warnings  of  Christ  to  these  "  angels,"  all  implying  their  indi- 
vidual responsibility  for  the  faults  of  the  Churches,—"  remember 
tthou']  from  whence  thou  art  fallen,  and  repent  {thoul  and  do 
tlwu']  the  first  works"—"  repent  {thou']  or  else  I  will  come  unto 
thee  quickly"—"  be  [thoiC]  watchful,  and  strengthen  \thou']  the 
things  which  remain"—"  hold  \thou\  fast  that  which  thou  hast" 
— "  be  [thou'\  zealous,  and  repent  [^/low].-  <!  There  are  other  like 
passages ;  indeed  these  seven  epistles  are  nearly  made  up  of 
them.  The  individual  called  "  the  angel"  is,  in  each  case,  iden- 
tified with  his  Church,  and  his  Church  with  him.  And  in  the 
few  places  where  the  language  addressed  to  the  Churches  by  the 
Saviour  is  in  the  plural  number,'"  it  is  addressed  to  them  gene- 
rally, no  particular  reference  being  made  to  their  Elders,  as  if 
they  shared  the  responsibility. «    On  the  contrary,  we  find  this 

k  Rev.  ii.  iii.  1  Rev.  ii.  2. 

m  Acts  XX.  17.  n  Rev.  ii.  2,  9,  13,  19 ;  iii.  1,  8,  15. 

o  Rev.  ii.  13 ;  iii,  4,  8.  p  Rev.  ii.  14,  20;  iii.  3,  15, 

q  Rev.  ii.  5,  IC ;  iii.  2,  11,  19.  r  Rev.  ii.  10,  23—25. 

«  See  Note  C 


feS  EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE. 

peculiarly  strong  expression  in  the  admonition  to  the  angel  of 
the  Ephesian  Church,  where,  as  has  been  fully  shown,  there 
were  many  Elders  or  Presbyters,  "  I  will  remove  tliy  candlestick 
\thy  Church']  out  of  his  place,  except  thou  repent" ^ — not  the 
Church  of  the  presbytery,  nor  even  of  thy  presbytery,  but  "  thy 
Church."    Surely  a  diocesan  is  here ! 

Test  then  by  these  seven  epistles,  by  each  of  them  and  all  of 
them,  the  episcopal  and  presbyterian  theories,  and  see  which 
best  agrees  with  their  letter  and  their  spirit:  most  assuredly 
they  are  episcopacy  from  beginning  to  end.  Connect  these  epis- 
tles with  those  to  Timothy  and  Titus ;  and  decide  whether  they 
do  not  all  proclaim  episcopacy.  Compare  this  entire  connected 
evidence  with  all  that  is  recorded  concerning  the  powers  of  mere 
Elders ;  and  let  the  spirit  of  candour  and  impartiality  determine 
whether  episcopacy  does  not  even  triumph  in  the  abundance  of 
Its  scriptural  proofs." 

And  let  it  be  observed,  that  we  have  made  no  use  of  those 
scriptures  which  merely  a^i^ee  with  episcopacy,  or  tend  to  ilhts- 
trate  the  affairs  of  the  apostolic  Church  according  to  that  theory, 
but  only  of  those  which  are  its  demonstration.  And  this,  we 
think,  is  complete. 

All  minds,  however,  do  not  appreciate  evidence  equally.  Let 
then  our  argument  be  rated  at  its  lowest  value,  and  it  will  still 
be  sufficient.  Is  there  any  thing  like  positive  proof  in  Scripture, 
that  mere  Elders  [or  Presbyter-bishops]  had  the  power  of  su- 
preme discipline  over  the  clergy,  or  ordained  without  the  co- 
operation of  a  minister  of  higher  authority  ?  there  certainly  is 
not,  as  we  have  fully  shown.  Is  there  not,  however,  in  Scrip- 
ture, proof  absolutely  positive  that  persons  of  higher  authority 
than  Elders  did  ordain,  and  did  possess  the  supreme  right  of 
clerical  discipline  ?  there  certainly  is,  as  we  have  most  abun- 
dantly demonstrated.  Is  there  not,  moreover,  positive  scriptural 
proof  that  these  high  powers,  superior  to  those  ascribed  to  mere 
Elders,  existed  in  other  individuals  than  the  original  Apostles, 
and  continued  in  the  possession  of  such  officers  to  the  latest  date 
of  the  inspired  volume  ?  it  cannot  be  reasonably  questioned. 
Now,  let  the  reader  )  stimate  all  this  evidence  as  low  as  he 
pleases,  it  is  evidence  enough  for  episcopacy.  A  hint  concern- 
ing the  will  of  God  should  be  imperative  with  every  humble 
and  conscientious  believer.  The  slightest  preponderance  of 
proof,  when  all  has  been  investigated,  should  be  sufficient  for  a 
candid  mind. — Let  then  such  considerations  have  their  due 
weight  with  those  who  may  think  that  our  argument  comes 
short  of  demonstration. 

We  are  persuaded,  however,  that  to  strict  and  severe  reasoners 
it  will  appear  a  very  close  approximation  to  demonstrative  proof. 


t  Rev.  ii.  5.     In  Rev.  L  20,  the  candlesticks  are  said  to  be  the  Churches, 
u  For  further  renoiai-ks  on  the  permanent  obligation  of  episcopi^cy,  sec  Note  !» 
And  concerning  the  plea  of  necessity  for  departing  from  that  ministry,  see  Note  E* 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  29 

Of  such  reasoners  we  ask — can  a  single  step  be  made  in  apply- 
ing Scripture  to  the  support  of  parity,  without  taking  something 
for  granted  V  if  there  be  an  argument  for  parity  free  from  thia 
objection,  the  present  writer  does  not  recollect  to  have  seen  it. 
On  the  other  hand,  is  not  the  scriptural  argument  for  episcopacy 
a  regular  induction  from  scriptural  facts7  we  are  persuaded 
that  no  impartial  mind  will  answer  in  the  negative. 

We  assert,  therefore,  in  conclusion,  that  the  episcopal  ministry 
alone  has  the  authority  of  the  inspired  ^vriters.  AH  the  facts, 
all  the  examples  they  record,  without  one  clear  exception,  show 
that  such  was  the  ministry  of  the  apostolic  age.  We  therefore 
now  add  this  other  assertion — that  such  was  the  ministry  alluded 
to  by  the  Apostle  when  he  wrote,  "  remember  them  which  have 
the  rule  over  you,  who  have  spoken  unto  you  the  word  of  God, 
....  obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit  your- 
selves, for  they  watch  for  your  souls,  as  they  that  must  give  ac- 
count."^ Whether  such  an  injunction,  taken  in  connexion  with 
what  has  been  proved  in  this  essay,  does  not  amount  to  an  in- 
spired comm.and  to  conform  to  the  episcopal  ministry,  is  left, 
with  prayer  for  their  right  direction  and  decision,  to  the  con 
sciences  respectively  of  our  readers. 


POSTSCRIPT. 

On  the  plea  of  Parity-^that  Timothy  acted  as  an  ^^Evangelist.^^ 

Parity  alleges  that  Timothy  exercised  supreme  authority  in 
the  Church  at  Ephesus  as  an  "  Evangelist  ;"^  and  that  that  office, 
like  (on  their  theory)  the  entire  apostolic  supremacy,  was  but 
temporary ;  and  that  thus,  in  a  short  period,  the  whole  clerical 
power  rested  in  the  one  grade  of  Elders  or  Presbyters. 

To  this  allegation,  in  all  its  parts,  ^ve  have  several  conclusive 
answers. —  L  Timothy  is  called  an  "  Apostle'"*  as  well  as  an 
"  evangelist ;"  and  as  he  thus  had  the  highest  ecclesiastical 
power  in  virtue  of  the  apostolic  office,  the  appellation  "  evangel- 
ist" could  add  nothing  to  it.  Neither,  of  course,  can  any  infer- 
ence bearing  on  the  episcopal  controversy  be  drawn  from  that 
appellation. —  2.  It  does  not  appear  that  evangelists  had,  as  such, 
any  particular  rank  in  the  ministry.  Philip,  the  Deacon,  was 
an  " evangelist j""^  in  Ephes.  iv.  11.  "evangelists  are  put  after 
"  prophets ;"  in  1  Cor.  xii.  28.  they  are  not  included  at  all ;  i* 

V  See  Note  P. 

w  Heb.  xiii.  7, 1 7.  See  also  Note  G.  for  a  refutation  of  the  objection,  that  monarchy 
/laa  as  good  scriptural  authority  as  episcopacy. 

a  S^  2  Tim.  iv.  5.        b  1  Tliess.  ii.  6.,  compared  with  i.  1.        c  Acts  xxl  8. 
3* 


30  EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE. 

appears  also  that  some  of  the  laity  did  the  work  of  evangelizing  ;^ 
and  yet  Timothy,  an  Apostle,  is  directed,  we  see,  to  do  the  same 
work.  To  rely  therefore  on  the  mere  title  "evangelist"  in  proof 
of  any  thing  which  is  to  affect  our  controversy,  is  futile ;  no 
argument  can  be  built  upon  it  without  taking  for  ffranted  that 
evangelists  had,  as  such,  these  high  clerical  powers,  which  is 
the  very  allegation  in  dispute.— 3.  There  is  no  proof  whatever 
that  Titus  and  the  *'  angels"  of  the  seven  Churches  were  evan- 
gelists. If,  therefore,  we  should  surrender  the  case  of  Timothy, 
these  other  cases  of  supreme  ecclesiastical  authority  would  still 
contradict  parity,  and  be  evidence  for  episcopacy.  Sound  rea- 
soning, however,  will  rather  yield  up  the  claims  founded  on 
the  application  to  Timothy  of  the  mere  title  "  evangelist ;"  it 
would  rather  retain  the  case  of  Timothy  for  the  episcopal  cause, 
independently  of  other  considerations,  from  its  perfect  analogy 
with  these  cases,  which  obviously  and  unavoidably  belong  to 
that  cause. — 4.  If  we  should  allow  that  the  superior  rights  ol 
the  Apostles  and  of  this  evangelist  came  soon  to  a  close,  there 
would  yet  be  no  evidence  (or  no  clear  evidence)  that  mere 
Elders  either  had  or  acquired  the  power  of  ordaining  and  of 
executive  clerical  discipline.  We  should  but  find  that  the  Church 
was  left  without  an  order  of  men  who  could  show  positive  in- 
spired credentials  for  exercising  these  high  functions.  And  this 
demonstratio  ex  absurdo  is  of  itself  almost  sufficient  for  episco- 
pacy. The  superior  office  of  the  Apostles,  and  of  Timothy, 
Titus,  and  the  seven  "  angels,"  miist  have  been  intended  to  be 
permanent,  whatever  was  the  name  of  that  office,  and  however 
its  name  might  be  changed.  For,  be  it  not  forgotten,  that,  as  it 
cannot  be  proved,  it  ought  not  to  be  allowed,  that  any  but  those 
who  held  this  apostolical  or  episcopal  office,  superior  to  that  of 
mere  Presbyters,  either  performed  the  ordinations  mentioned  in 
Scripture,  or  are  there  said  to  have  the  right  to  perform  such 
acts. 

No  certain  and  precise  definition  can  be  found  for  the  word 
"  evangelist,"  as  used  in  Scripture ;  the  mere  name  decides 
nothing  more  than  it  would  in  the  more  thoroughly  English 
form  gospeUer.  Etymologicall}'-,  its  only  meaning  is  "  a  per- 
son occupied  with  or  devoted  to  the  gospel ;"  and  as  the  gos- 
pel means  the  "  good  message,"  the  idea  contained  in  the 
latter  word  may  be  extended  to  "  evangelist,"  and  that  title  be 
defined  "  a  messenger  of  the  good  message,"  i.  e.  one  who  pro- 
claims the  gospel.  Applied  in  this  sense  to  a  minister,  it  seems 
equivalent  to  the  word  preacher;  it  may  also  mean,  but  not 

d  Acts  viii.  4.  and  xi.  19,  20. ;  see  the  Greek.  In  Acts  viii.  1.  the  "church"  at 
Jerusalem  is  said  to  be  scattered  abroad  ;  the  Apostles  are  excepted ;  with  that  ex- 
ception "they  were  aW  scattered,"  saith  the  passage;  meaning,  doubtless,  that  so 
many  fled  as  to  breeik  up  their  assemblies ;  of  course,  tlie  scattering  applies  to  the 
laity  chiefly ;  and  some  of  these  are  thus,  we  think,  included  among  those  who  were 
engaged  in  "evangelizing."  The  word  "preach"  in  these  passages  is  of  course,  in 
ihis  view,  used  by  our  translators  with  same  latitude  ;  as  will  also  be  s«e»  on  exaia- 
iiving  the  Greek — XaXew  and  e««yy«Xt^<i»  being  the  words  thus  translated. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  31 

necessarily,  a  spreader  of  the  gospel,  a  missionary ;  and  mis- 
sionaries, we  know,  may  be  either  Bishops,  Presbyters,  or  Dea- 
cons, either  of  the  three  orders.  Yet  in  none  of  the  three  places 
in  Scripture  where  the  word  "  evangelist"  occurs*  arc  missiona- 
ry duties  even  hinted  at.  The  epistles  to  Timothy  require  of 
him  nothing  of  the  kind  ;  and  the  immediate  context  of  the  verse 
containing  that  word  charges  him  only  to  "  preach  the  word,  to 
be  instant  in  season,  out  of  season,  to  reprove,  rebuke,  exhort  to 
sound  doctrine,  watch,  and  endure  afflictions."  It  is  not  to  be 
presumed  then  from  Scripture  that  an  evangelist  was  necessarily 
a  missionary. f  Nor  was  the  Church  at  Ephesus  new  enough  to 
require  Timothy  as  its  evangelist  in  the  missionary  sense ;  for 
it  must  have  been  eleven  years  founded  when  Timothy  is,  for 
the  first  and  only  time,  called  by  that  title. — Etymology  and 
Scripture  then,  the  only  proper  authorities  in  our  present  ar- 
gument, both  leave  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  evangelist" 
uncertain. 

And  if  we  consent  to  appeal  to  the  fathers,  to  which  our 
opponents  would  lead  us  for  farther  light  concerning  "  evan- 
gelists," we  shall  not  only  gain,  from  their  abundant  general 
testimony  in  favour  of  episcopacy,  infinitely  more  than  we  could 
possibly  lose  by  having  this  word  defined  by  them  against  us, 
but  we  shall  actually  have  their  authority  respecting  that  word 
in  our  favour.  A  commonly  received  definition,  founded  on  an 
imperfect  extract  from  one  of  the  fathers,  Eusebius,  is  merely 
this — an  evangelist  was  appointed  "to  lay  the  foundations  of  the 
laith  in  barbarous  nations,  to  constitute  them  pastors,  and  hav- 
ing committed  to  them  the  cultivating  of  those  new  plantations, 
to  pass  on  to  other  countries  and  nations."^  All  this  is  indeed 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  episcopal  theory,  since  such  an 
evangelist  may  be  a  missionary-bishop.  A  fuller  examination 
however  of  Eusebius  will  show  that  evangelists  did  not  merely 
found  new  churches,  but  builded  also  those  founded  by  others — 
and  that  the  evangelists  he  speaks  of  in  the  place  quoted,  are 
declared  by  him  to  have  been  ordained  to  the  highest  grade  of 
the  ministry,  before  they  set  out  on  their  work.  We  extract 
the  whole  chapter,  except  a  few  concluding  lines  which  are 
irrelevant,  from  an  old  translation. 

'^  Chap,  xxxiii.  Of  the  Evangelists  thenjiourishing.  Among 
them  which  were  then  famous  was  Quadratiis,  whom  they  say 
(together  with  the  daughters  of  Philip)  to  have  been  endued 
with  the  gift  of  prophesying.  And  many  others,  also,  at  the 
same  time  flourished,  which,  obtaining  the  first  step^  of  apos- 
tolical succession,  and  being  as  divine  disciples  of  the  chief  and 
principal  men,  builded  the  churches  every  where  planted  by 
the  Apostles:  and  preaching  and  sowing  the  celestial  seed  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  throughout  the  world,  filled  the  barns  of 

«  Acts  xxi.  8.     Ephes.  iy.  11,     2  Tim.  iv.  5,  (See  note  H. 

p  See  Dr.  Miller's  Letters,  p  94.  [p.  61, 2d  erf. J 
ii  la  the  Greek  ra^iv,  order,  rank,  station,  appointment. 


32  EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE. 

God  with  increase.  For  tiie  greater  part  of  tlie  disciples  then 
living,  affected  with  great  zeal  towards  the  word  of  God,  first 
fulfilling  the  heavenly  commandment,  distributed  their  sub- 
stance unto  the  poor  :  next,  taking  their  journey,  fulfilled  the 
work  and  office  of  Evangelists, thai  is,  they  preached  Christ  unto 
them  which  as  yet  heard  not  of  the  doctrine  of  feiith,  and  pub- 
lished earnestly  the  doctrine  of  the  holy  gospel.  These  men 
having  planted  the  faith  in  sundry  new  and  strange  places, 
ordained  there  other  pastors,  committing  unto  them  the  tillage 
of  the  new  ground,  and  the  oversight  of  such  as  were  lately 
converted  unto  the  faith,  passing  themselves  unto  other  peaple 
and  countries,  being  holpen  thereunto  by  the  grace  of  God 
which  wrought  with  them:  for  as  yet  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  they  wrought- miraculously,  so  that  an  innumerable  mul- 
titude of  men  embraced  the  religion  of  the  Almighty  God  at 
the  first  hearing,  with  prompt  and  willing  minds.  Insomuch 
that  it  is  impossible  to  rehearse  by  name,  when  and  who  were 
pastors  and  Evangelists  in  the  first  succession  after  the  Apos- 
tles in  the  Churches  scattered  throughout  the  world ;  it  shf^ll 
seem  sufficient  only  to  commit  to  writing  and  memory,  the 
names  of  such  as  are  recorded  unto  us  by  tradition  from  the 
Apostles  themselves,  as  of  Ignatius  in  the  epistles  before  alleged, 
and  of  Clemens,  mentioned  in  the  epistle  which  for  undoubted 
he  wrote  unto  the  Corinthians,  in  the  person  of  the  Roman 
Church,"  &c.' 

On  this  extract  several  remarks  may  be  made. — 1,  Eusebius 
here  describes  what  took  place  long  before  his  own  time,  and 
what  therefore  he  knew  but  imperfectly.'^ — 2,  Evangelists,  he 
says,  did  the  stationary  work  of  "building"  the  churches,  as 
well  as  the  migratory  one  of  '•  founding"  them;  which  shows 
that  the  definition  of  that  title,  in  regard  to  the  question  whether 
it  necessarily  implied  missionary  functions,  is  not  to  be  certainly 
made  out  from  the  fathers  any  more  than  from  Scripture :  for 
what  difference  is  there  between  a  stationary  Evangehst  and  a 
settled  minister  ?— 3,  The  Evangelists  spoken  of  by  Eusebius  are 
said  to  have  "  obtained  the  first  s^ep  [rank]  of  apostolical  suc- 
cession," i.  e.  were  made  Bishops,  in  the  sense  of  that  word  in 
the  days  of  Eusebius,  and  ever  since  ;  which  shows  that  it  is  a 
mistake  to  quote  his  account  of  Evangelists  in  favour  of  parity ; 
those  alluded  to  by  him  were  Evangelist-bishops. — 4,  Those 
Evangelists  who  are  named  by  him  in  this  extract,  were  all  pro- 
per Bishops.  Quadratus  was  Bishep  of  Athens.  Ignatius  was 
jBishop  of  Antioch.  Clement  was  Bishop  of  Rome.  All  which 
is  recorded  in  this  same  work  of  Eusebius.' — 5,  Lest  it  be 
thought  that  his  expression,  "  the  greater  part  of  the  disciples 
then  living"  became  Evangelists,  makes  it  absurd  to  suppose 
them  all  Bishops,  let  it  be  remarked  that  he  speaks  of  the  rich 

i  Eusebius  Ecdes.  Hist.  Lib.  Ill,  ch.  xxxiii.  being  ch.  xxxviL  after  the  Greek. 
k  See  the  end  of  Lib.  VIL  and  the  beginning  of  Lib.  VIII. 
1  Lib.  in.  ch.  xix.  xxxi.  x;cxii.     Lib.  IV.  ch.  xxii. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE  66 

only  among  the  disciples,  since  of  none  but  these  would  he  pro- 
bably have  recorded  that  they  "  distributed  their  substance  to 
the  poor."  Yet  even  with  this  restricted  interpretation,  and 
much  more  when  unrestricted,  this  expression  of  Eueebius  is 
magniloquent  and  oratorical,  and  not  fit  to  be  the  basis  of  any 
argument  concerning  the  number  of  the  early  Evangelists. — 
6,  Ecclesiastical  historians  sometimes  speak  of  a  person's  ordain- 
ing, who  did  not  perform  the  rite  himself,  but  had  it  done  by 
another ;  as  the  historian  Socrates  says  of  the  emperor  Constan- 
tine,  "  when  he  iiad  builded  churches  among  them,  he  hastened 
to  consecrate  them  a  Bishop,  and  to  ordain  the  holy  company 
of  clergymen."™  If  it  be  thus  said  that  Constantine  consecrated 
and  ordained,  though  he  only  employed  Bishops  to  do  so,  it  is 
competent  for  us  to  infer,  that  the  same  must  be  meant,  if  Euse- 
bius  be  understood  to  say,  that  Evangelists,  not  of  the  highest 
ministerial  rank,  ordained  ;  they  only  caused  persons  to  be  or- 
dained by  ministers  of  that  rank.  The  fair  construction,  how- 
ever, of  his  language,  is— that  the  Evangelists  he  speaks  of  were 
themselves  of  that  highest  order.— 7,  Eusebius  was  a  thorough 
Episcopalian,  in  the  sense  of  the  word  "  Bishop,"  in  that  and  the 
present  day :  he  speaks  of  ordaining  by  Apostles  and  Bishops." 
and  is  full  of  the  "  successions"  of  various  lines  of  Bishops  down 
from  the  Apostles.^  If,  then,  he  was  consistent  v/ith  his  own 
opinions,  he  cannot  mean  that  Evangelists  of  inferior  rank  or- 
dained, but  must  be  so  interpreted  as  not  to  violate  his  own  prin- 
ciples. If,  however,  he  be  inconsistent  with  himself,  when  he 
comes  to  speak  of  EvangeUsts,  his  authority  on  that  subject  is, 
of  course,  nugatory.  But,  we  repeat,  he  is  not  inconsistent  with 
himself,  if  construed  candidly,  i.  e.  according  to  his  own  princi- 
ples of  episcopacy,  in  regard  to  those  Evangelists  of  whom,  in 
the  passage  above  quoted,  he  writes.    They  were  Bishops. 

The  other  persons  named  by  Eusebius,  in  his  history,  as  Evaiv- 
gelists,  excepting  of  course  the  four  writers  of  the  gospels,  are, 
we  believe,  only  two.  One,  named  Thaddeus,  was  sent  by  the> 
Apostle  Thomas  into  Edessa,  where  he  performed  miracles, 
preached,  and  ordained  :  but  he  is  himself  called  an  "  Apostle" 
many  times  in  this  work  ;p  which  decides  that  he  also  was  in 
the  highest  order  of  the  ministry.  The  name  of  the  other  was 
Pantaenus,  who  Avas  at  first  a  teacher  of  divinity  at  Alexandria, 
in  Egypt.    The  following  is  recorded  of  him :    "  He  is  said  to 


ra  SoCRATBS  Ecdes.  Hist.  Lib.  I.  ch.  xiv.  being  chap,  xviii.  after  the  GJresk 
The  same  transaction  is  mentioned  in  Eusebius'  Life  of  Constantine,  Lib.  111.  ch. 
Ivi.  "  their  city,  (HehopoHs,)  which  was  blinded  with  superstition,  was  become 
tlie  Church  of  God,  and  filled  with  Priests  and  Deacons,  a,nd  they  had  a  Bishop  to 
govern  them." 

n  EusEB.  Hist.  Lib.  VI  ch.  vii.  xlii.  Lib.  II.  ch.  i.  Lib.  III.  ch.  xx.  Lib.  IV.  ch. 
xiv. 

o  Ibid,  Lib.  III.  ch.  iv— xi— xix— xxxii.  Lib.  IV.  ch.  v— xix.  Lib.  V.  ch.  xi.  Lib. 
Vl.  ch,  iy.  Lib.  VII.  ch.  xxxi.   Lib.  VIII.  ch.  i.  &c.  &c. 

p  Lib.  II.  ch.  i.  Lib.  I.  ch.  xiv. ;  see  particularly  what  there  followa  an  epistia 
eajd  tc  have  been  written  by  our  Saviour. 


34  EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE. 

have  showed  such  a  willing  mind  towards  the  publishing  of  tlie 
doctrine  of  Christ,  that  he  became  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel 
unto  the  eastern  Gentiles,  and  was  sent  as  far  as  India.  For 
there  were,  I  say,  there  were  then  many  Evangelists^  prepared 
for  tills  purpose,  to  promote  and  to  plant  the  heavenly  word 
with  godly  zeal,  after  the  guise'i  of  the  Apostles.  Of  these 
Pantaenus,  being  one,  is  said  to  have  come  into  India."''  On  this 
extract,  which  we  believe  completes  the  evidence  on  the  subject 
before  us,  contained  in  Eusebius,  these  two  remarks  suggest 
themselves.  1.  It  is  not  said  that  this  Evangelist,  Pantaenus,  or- 
dained ;  he  may,  like  the  emperor  Constantine,  have  procured 
ordination  by  others  for  the  clergy  set  over  the  churches  he 
founded.  2.  Taking  for  granted  even  that  he  did  ordain,  we 
read  that  he  "  planted  the  heavenly  word  after  the  guise  cf  the 
Apostles,''''  conforming  to  their  model  or  standard  ;  of  course  his 
ordinations  were  after  the  apostolical  example,  which  has  been 
fully  shown  in  the  above  essay,  and  was  certainly  believed  by 
Eusebius,  to  have  been  according  to  the  episcopal  scheme.  Such 
ordinations  he  could  not  have  performed  without  being  a  proper 
Bishop  himself. 

We  think  then  that  parity  gains  nothing  by  going  tc^  Eusebius 
for  an  account  of  the  office  and  powers  of  Evangelists.  On  the 
contrary,  the  gain,  such  as  it  is,  is  on  the  side  of  episcopacy. 

After  what  has  now  been  said,  no  impartial  person  will,  we 
think,  contend  that  Eusebius  meant  to  say  that  all  Evangelists 
(of  all  grades)  had  the  power  of  ordaining.  If,  however,  such 
a  proposition  be  maintained  concerning  this  father,  we  neutralize 
the  evidence  thus  claimed,  by  counter-evidence  of  the  same  kindy 
that  of  an  ancient  but  uninspired  author,  who,  in  conformity 
with  Scripture,  asserts  that  there  were  among  the  Evai^elists 
persons  who  had  no  right  to  ordain.  We  quote  from  Ham- 
mond :* — "  For,  as  the  office  of  Evangelist,  being  to  preach  to 
unbelievers,  requires  not  the  donatior  of  all  the  episcopal  powers^ 
mz.  of  ruling,  nor  the  power  of  ordination  necessarily,,  because 
when  the  Evangelist  hath  planted  the  faith,  the  Apostle  himself 
may  come  and  confirm,  and  ordain  Bishops,  as  we  see  in  Sama- 
ria, Acts  viii.  17.  (and  therefore  the  author  of  the  Commentaries 
on  the  Epistles  under  St.  Ambrose's  name,  saith  on  thi«  place, 
Quamvis  non  sint  sacerdotes,  evangelizare  tamen  poss^mt  sine 
cathedra,  quemadmodum  Stephanus  et  Philippus,  though  they 
be  not  priests,  [that  is.  Bishops,]  yet  they  may  evangelize  with- 
out a  chair:)  so  the  donation  of  that  superior  power  doth  not 
yet  make  them  cease  to  be  Evangelists."  Stephen  and  Philip, 
both  Deacons,  and  having  no  right  to  ordain,  or  to  occupy  the 
episcopal  "  chair,"  are  yet,  we  see,  reckoned  Evangelists  by  this 
writer.  Stephen,  who  we  know  died  a  Deacon,  is  called  by  him 
an  Evangelist.     And  Philip,  who  when  called  in  Scripture  an 

q  fiinrjiiarof,  conformity  to  a  model,  example,  or  standard ;  copy;  close  imitadoa. 
r  Lib.  V.  cli.  ix.  being  ch.  x.  in  the  Greek. 
B  On  Ephes.  iv  1 1 :  note  b. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  35 

Evangelist,  is  also  denominated  "  one  of  the  seven?^  Deacons,  is 
said  by  this  writer  to  have  been,  equally  with  Stephen,  "  Avithout 
a  chair"  of  sacerdotal  office.  This  tlien  is.  uninspired  proof,  to 
be  added  to  that  of  revelation,  that  Evangelists  had  not,  merely 
as  such,  the  right  to  ordain.  And  taking  into  view  the  whole  of 
this  sort  of  proof,  the  definition  v.diich  we  quoted  above  from  an 
eminent  Presbyterian  divine,  will,  we  think,  be  allowed  to  be,  in 
this  respect,  too  unqualified. 

This  appeal  to  the  fathers  has  been  made  only  to  meet  our 
opponents  on  their  own  ground,  in  their  attempt  to  define  from 
those  writings  a  word,  the  meaning  of  which  cannot  be  clearly- 
made  out  from  Scripture.  We  have  shown  that  what  the  fathers 
add  towards  its  elucidation,  is  entirely  in  our  favour. 

Returning  to  Scripture,  we  conclude  with  yet  another  answer 
to  the  assertion  of  parity — that  the  superior  powers  of  Timothy, 
being  founded  on  his  being  an  "  Evangelist,"  were  to  be  exer- 
cised only  during  the  early  and  unsettled  state  of  the  Church  at 
Ephesus.  And  here  we  shall  take  the  case  according  to  parity's 
own  shovv'ing.  Most  Presbyterian  controvertists  (as  also,  indeed, 
many  other  writers)  suppose  Timothy  to  have  been  placed  at 
Ephesus  so  early  as  at  the  sudden  departure  of  Paul  for  Mace- 
donia after  the  riot  there.^  His  duty,  as  an  Evangelist,  was  (say 
anti-episcopalians)  to  settle  the  affairs  of  the  then  new  Church  in 
that  place.  If  so,  be  it  remembered,  he  soon  performed  one  part 
of  what  (they  say)  Avas  required  of  him  as  such  an  extraordina- 
ry officer  ;  he  soon  ordained  Eldei-s  in  that  city  or  region  which 
(they  say)  was  before  destitute  of  them  ;  for  its  Elders  are  ad- 
dressed by  Paul  in  less  than  a  year  after  his  flight  from  Ephe- 
sus." These  Elders,  be  it  next  remarked,  are  there  declared 
(they  say)  to  have  power  to  "  rule"  the  flock  and  their  own 
body,  besides  that  of  ordaining.  If  so,  the  government  of  that 
Church  was  fully  organized :  and  thus  was  fulfilled  the  othei 
part  of  the  function  of  Timothy,  as  a  special  and  extraordinary 
officer.  Of  course  that  extraordinary  officer,  the  Evangelist, 
was  no  longer  required ;  the  Ephesian  Church  had  obtained  a 
body  of  Elders,  competent,  if  any  such  body  is,  and  at  least  said 
by  parity  to  be  competent,  to  ordain  and  "  rule."  Nay,  Paul,  it 
is  alleged,  had  cAar^ed  these  Elders  to  "rule  the  Church  of 
God."  It  surely  was  time  for  Timothy,  if  a  mere  Evangelist, 
to  "pass  on  to  other  countries  and  nations." 

Now,  how  does  this  obvious  cessation  of  their  need  of  the  sup- 
posed extraordinary  officer,  agree  with  the  undeniable  fact  that 
the  second  epistle  was  written  to  him  almost  seven  years  after 
the  supposed  date  of  his  being  placed  in  Ephesus,  and  more 
than  six  years  after  the  interview  of  Paul  with  its  Elders — this 
same  Timothy  still  exercising  his  ecclesiastical  powers  in  that 
city  ?  In  the  second  epistle,  and  that  only — eleven  years  after 
the  first  preaching  of  Paul  in  Ephesus,^  more  than  nine  years 


t  Acts  xix.  23,  &c. ;  xx.  1.     1  Tim.  i.  3.         u  Actsxx  17.         t  Acts  xthj.  19 


86  EPISCOPACY  TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE. 

after  the  establishment  of  a  Christian  body  there  distinct  from 
the  Jews,^  nearly  seven  years  after  the  supposed  commission  to 
Timothy  to  settle  their  affairs,  and  more  than  six  years  after 
Paul  addressed  their  Elders— in  that  late  second  epistle,  and  that 
only,  is  Timothy  called  an  "Evangelist,"  and  desired  to  "do  the 
work"  of  such  a  functionary.  That  is  (says  parity)  Timothy 
was  still  required  for  the  purpose  of  ordaining,^  although  there 
had  so  long  been  Elders  there  competent  to  ordain  !  Timothy 
(says  parity)  .was  still  required  for  the  governing  of  that  body 
of  clergy,  although  that  body  had  had,  for  so  considerable  a 
period,  an  intrinsic  ecclesiastical  power  to  "  rule"  its  own  mem 
bers ! 

Is  it  not  obvious  then,  that  the_  two  hypotheses  of  parity,  that 
concerning  the  right  of  mere  Presbyters  to  ordain  and  govern, 
and  that  concerning  the  rights  of  Evangelists,  are  inconsistent 
with  each  other  ?  The  Evangelist  Timothy  (they  are  forced  to 
say)  held  restrained  till  at  least  the  year  66,  the  power  to  "  rule," 
which  Paul  had  charged  the  Elders  to  exercise  in  the  year  60  ! 
Or  else,  they  must  say  that  the  Evangelist  Timothy  supplanted, 
in  the  year  66,  the  rights  of  the  Elders  who  had  been  planted  in 
Ephesus  by  the  same  Evangelist  Timothy,  in  the  year  59  or  60 ! 
May  we  not  ask,  when  did  he,  or  any  other  apostolical  man, 
plant  those  rights  again  ?  Does  not  the  scriptural  evidence  on 
these  points  leave  the  supposed  rights  of  Presbyters  either  with- 
held or  taken  from  them,  without  a  hint  that  the  restriction  or 
deprivation  was  afterwards  removed  ?  And  may  we  not  justly 
declare,  that  such  incongruities  in  the  best  theory  of  our  oppo- 
nents— for  they  certainly  have  none  better,  or  as  good — are 
something  very  like  an  absolute  disproof  of  parity,  and,  of 
com-se,  a   strong  indirect  proof  of  Episcopacy  ? 

w  Acts  xix.  9. 

X  In  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  as  well  as  in  the  first,  allusion  is  made  to  his 
m-daining  power  ;  see  2  Tim.  ii.  2  :  and  in  another  place,  after  urging  him  to  "do 
the  work  of  an  Evangelist,"  the  Apostle  adds,  "  make  full  jjroof  [fulfil  all  the  parts] 
of  thy  ministry,"  which  of  course  included  ordaining.     2  Tim.  iv.  5. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  37 


APPENDIX. 


NOTE  A— PAGE  12. 

Refer  to  Potter  on  Church  Government,  p.  175.  Amer.  e<lit.  and  to  the 
Protestant  Episcopalian^  No.  3.  p.  94. 

ViDELius,  a  non-episcopal  writer,  says  of  Clemens  Romaniis,  mentioned 
in  Phil  iv.  3.  that  after  the  death  of  Linus  and  Cletus,  who  were  Bishops 
of  Rome  before  him,  *'  Clemens  solus  Episcopi  nomen  retinuit  quia  jam, 
mvaluerat  distinctio  Episcopi  et  Preshyteri — Clement  alone  retained  the 
name  of  Bishop,  because  there  had  now  grown  into  use  the  distinction  be- 
tween Bishop  and  Presbyter."  Our  quotation  is  taken  from  the  answer  of 
Charles  I.  to  the  divines  who  argued  with  him  in  the  Isle  of  Wight,  p.  11 
and  it  shows  that  a  learned  non-episcopalian  allowed  the  use  of  the  title 
Bishop,  as  having  been  surrendered  by  a  portion  of  those  clergy  who  had 
formerly  enjoyed  it,  and  made  superior  to  that  of  Presbyter,  to  have  been 
common  in  the  age  just  after  the  apostolic,  and  before  the  death  of  St.  John;* 
and  this  is  equivalent  to  the  assertion  of  EpiscopaUans,  that  that  title  was 
very  early  taken  from  the  second  order  of  the  ministry,  and  appropriated  to 
the  highest,  which  had  previously  been  called  Apostles. 

NOTE  B— PAGE  24. 

Our  argument  allows  the  word  "  feed"  to  be  changed  to  "  rule ;"  but  this 
is  mere  concession.  The  venerable  translators  have  given  the  true  meaning 
oi voiiiaivd)  as  adapted  to  the  passage :  the  context  usually  deciding  the  choice 
between  the  several  meanings  of  a  word.  In  Matt.  ii.  6.  the  word  "  govern  - 
or,"  and  in  Rev.  ii.  27.  xii.  5.  and  xix.  15,  the  phrase  "  rod  [sceptife]  of  iron," 
point  to  the  riding  power  of  a  shepherd.  But  in  the  present  passage  "  flock" 
IS  the  proper  defining  word  in  the  context ;  and  *'  feed"  is  its  correlative.  It 
it  be  alleged  that  "  overseers"  is  the  definmg  word,  we  answer,  that,  as  a 
literal  shepherd  is  never  called  in  Scripture  an  "  overseer"  emtrKovos,  the  de- 
fining function  belongs  more  appropriately  to  the  word  "  flock,"  as  required 
by  the  congruity  of  figurative  language :  we  fiirthg:  answer,  that  the  mean- 
ing of  "overseers,"  allowing  it  to  be  the  defining  word  for  voifiaiva, 
comes  short  of  the  idea  of  proper  "ruhng"  or  supreme  government,  and 
agrees  better  with  that  of  "  feeding"  or  tending  a  flock.  The  word  "  tend" 
would  be  a  sound  translation, — Let  those  who  contend  for  the  word  "  rule" 
in  this  place,  consider  what  eflfect  it  might  have  on  our  controversy  with 
Rome  to  allow  the  same  word  in  John  xxi.  16,  where  Jesus  says  to  Peter 
"  feed  [rule]  my  sheep."  If  Troi/zaivco  may  be  translated  "  rule"  without  au- 
thority from  the  cortext,  it  may  be  so  rendered  in  the  latter  passage.  If, 
however,  this  arbitrary  mode  of  translation  be  disallowed,  rule  cannot  be 
what  Paul  meant  in  addressing  the  Elders  of  Ephesus. 

Campbell  translates  John  xxi.  16.  '■'■tend  my  sheep,"  and  has  an  excellent 
note.  Bez  a.  has  pasce  "feed,"  both  there  and  (pascendam)  in  Acts  xx.  28. 
Calvin  and  Erasmus  give  pasce  "  feed"  in  the  former,  but  use  the  strong 

♦  Clement  succeeded  as  Bishop  of  Rome,  A.  D.  91 ;  St.  John  died  A.  D.  100.  See 
Calmet's  Dictionary, 


S8  EPISCOPACY  TESTED  BY  SCRIPTURE. 

word  regendam  "  govern,-'  iri  trie  latter ;  which  was  either  a  great  overs 
or  a  great  inconsistency. 

Observe  especially  tills  further  consideration. "  When  the  Romanists  urge 
that,  in  their  sense,  Peter  was  to  "rule"  Christ's  sheep,  we  answer,  that 
this  notion  is  fully  disproved  by  other  Scriptures ;  as,  Paul's  withstanding 
Peter  to  tlie  face,  and  James'  presiding  in  a  council  held  at  Jerusalem,  though 
Peter  was  present.  (Gal.  ii.  11.  Acts  xv.  13,  19.)  And  when  the  advo- 
cates of  parity  "assert,  that,  in  their  sense,  the  Elders  "ruled"  at  Ephesus,  we 
give  them  an  answer  precisely  analogous ;  other  Scriptures  contradict  that 
notion^  as  is  especially  seen  in  boMi  the  epistles  to  Timothy,  as  also  in  those 
to  Titus  and  the  "angels"  of  the  seven  Churches.  The  word  "feed"  there- 
fore (or  "tend")  is  clearly  the  proper  one  in  both  passages  :  neither  the  Pope 
nor  Presbyters  have  a  right  to  the  rule  wliich  they  respectively  claim. 

NOTE  C— PAGE  27. 

In  the  epistles  to  the  "angels"  of  the  Churches  in  Smyrna  and  Tbyatira, 
(Rev.  ii.)  there  is  a  change  from  the  singular  to  the  plural  number.  Tliis 
we  Episcopalians  say,  marks  a  transition  of  the  address,  from  the  angel  or 
Bishop,  to  his  Church  generally ;  but  parity  often  alleges  that  these  examples 
of  the  plural  number  show  the  entire  epistles  to  have  been  mtcnded  for  each 
whole  Church ;  and  thus,  it  is  supposed,  the  idea  is  refuted  that  these  seven 
epistles  were  meant  for  the  angels  or  Bishops,  distinctively  and  individually. 
But  the  same  change  in  the  mode  of  address  occurs  in  the  epistle  of  Ignatius 
to  Polycarp,  Bishop  of  the  same  Church  at  Smyrna ;  as  will  be  seen  by  a 
reference  to  Archbishop  Wake's  Translation  of  the  Apostolical  Fathers^  p. 
^8,  American  edit. ;  or  Dr.  Cookes  Essay,  p.  xxiii.*  In  the  first  four  para- 
graphs, Ignatius  addresses  Polycarp  personally  and  exclusively.  la  the  filth 
he  sends  a  message,  through  Polycarp,  to  the  "  sisters"  and  the  "brethren." 
But  in  the  sixth  he  bursts  forth  directly  to  the  Church  of  Sm3^rna,  the  flock 
at  large — "  Hearken  unto  the  Bishop,  that  God  also  may  hearken  unto  you. 
My  soul  be  security  for  them  that  submit  to  their  Bishop,  with  their  Presby- 
ters and  Deacons.     And  may  my  portion  be  togctlicr  with  thairs  in  God. 

Labour  with  one  another,  contend  together,  run  together Let  none  of 

you  be  fouiid  a  deserter Be  long-suflering  therefore  toward  each  other 

in  meekness,  as  God  is  towards  you."  The  paragraphs  following  are  ad- 
dressed to  Polycarp,  like  the  first  four.  Now,  no  one  doubts  that  this  epistle 
was  directed  to  one  individual,  Polycarp,  and  that  the  greater  part  of  ii  related 
to  liim  personally,  or  in  the  sacred  office  which  he  held  ;  those  even  who  deny 
its  authenticity  must  allow  that  it  is  fabricated  on  this  principle :  yet  the  whole 
of  the  people  are,  in  the  very  body  of  the  epistle,  addressed  directly  by  Igna- 
tius. Such  an  episode  then  is  no  violence  to  the  main  current  of  such  a 
writing ;  it  was  not,  in  that  age,  deemed  absurd  or  incongruous.  An  address 
to  the  flock  does  not  vitiate  the  address  to  their  Bishop  in  which  it  occurs. 
This  answers  the  only  real  objection  to  the  episcopal  construction  of  the 
epistles  to  the  seven  "angels." 

It  may  be  here  added,  that,  in  the  second  epistle  of  St.  John,  the  addi'ess 
is  twice  changed  from  the  plural  number  to  the  singvilar ;  part  of  it  being 
addressed  to  the  "  elect  lady"  particularly,  and  part  to  her  and  her  cliildren 
jointly. 

The  inscription  and  the  conclusion  of  the  epistle  to  Philemon  are  ad- 
dressed to  several  persons  and  a  Church  ;  the  body  of  the  epistle  is  addressed 
to  Philemon,  and  intended  for  him  exclusively. 

In  Philip,  iv.  2,  3.  are  direct  addresses  to  individuals,  occurring  within  the 
body  of  an  epistle  to  a  whole  Church. 

*  See  page  401,  second  edition. 


EPISCOPACV   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  39 

NOTE  D— PAGE  28. 

Episcopacy  Permanent. 

Scriptural  proof  having  been  given  for  episcopacy,  down  to  the  latest  date 
of  the  inspired  canon,  and  it  having  been  also  shown  that  no  other  ministry 
I's  set  forth  in  the  New-Testament,  all  is  done  that  was  proposed  in  the  be- 
ginning of  this  essay.  It  will  not,  however,  be  improper  to  add  a  few  more 
remarks  concerning  its  permanent  obligation.  Some  allege  that,  though  as 
the  only  scriptural  model  it  was  binding  in  the  first  ages,  it  does  not  follow 
that  it  continues  binding  through  the  whole  Christian  dispensation.  To 
this  allegation  we  thus  reply : — 1.  It  resembles  that  of  the  denomination  of 
Friends  concerning  the  sacraments,  that  their  outward  signs  were  intended 
for  only  the  early  Christians,  not  for  our  later  periods.  There  is  no  stronger 
intimation,  we  believe,  that  visible  sacraments  were  to  be  perpetual,  than 
that  the  ministry  established  by  the  Apostles  was  to  be  so  :  the  expression, 
concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,  "ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come,'' 
being  no  stronger  than  the  charge  to  Timothy  (and  every  succeeding  minis- 
ter of  his  rank)  to  "  keep  the  commandment"  or  trust  committed  to  him 
"till  the  appearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (I  Cor.  xi.  26.  1  Tim. 
vi.  14.)  The  answer  to  this  error  concerning  the  sacraments  is  or  includes 
an  answer  to  the  supposition  before  us,  that  episcopacy,  though  having 
inspired  authority  at  first,  was  yet  of  only  transient  obligation.  This  answer 
to  the  mistaken  opinion  concerning  the  sacraments  we  need  not  here  detail,  as 
those  we  now  address  unite  with  us  in  deeming  it  sufficient.— 2.  If  it  be  allow- 
ed, of  any  two  ministries  now  existing,  that  the  one  is  based  on  Scripture,  and 
the  other  not,  no  sound  mind,  we  think,  will  deny  that  the  former  is  obligatory 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  latter. — 3.  When  our  Saviour,  after  finally  commis- 
sioning his  Apostles,  added  "  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  to  the  end  of  the 
world,"  (Matt,  xxviii.  20.)  he  meant  that  He  would  always  be  with  the 
apostolic  ministry.  This  is  affirmed  by  sound  Presbyterians^  as  well  as  by 
ourselves.  And  the  declaration  proves  that  tha^  ministry  was  to  exercise  its 
Lord's  authority  in  the  Church  to  the  end  of  the  world.  That  ministry,  the 
apostolic  or  scriptural  one,  we  have  demonstrated,  and  is  allowed  by  the  per- 
sons with  whom  we  now  argue,  to  have  been  episcopal.  Can  it  then  be  ima- 
gined by  those  who  are  thus  far  with  us,  that  any  ministry  subsequently  esta- 
blished has  the  Saviour's  authority  1  If  not,  then  the  position  cannot  be  evaded, 
that  episcopacy  is  pennanently  binding,  "  even  to  the  end  of  the  world." — 
4.  The  epistles  to  Timothy  are  said  by  parity  to  be  intended  for  all  ministers 
in  aU  ages.  Episcopalians  say  that,  besides  being  addressed  to  him  as  the 
chief  minister  at  Ephesus,  they  were  intended  for  the  direction  of  all  other 
chief  ministers,  by  us  called  Bishops ;  and  this,  we  presume,  is  allowed  by 
those  for  whom  this  note  is  written.  We  now  make  the  more  explicit  state- 
ment, that  these  epistles  are  for  the  direction  of  Bishops  in  all  ages.  This 
assertion  is  proved  by  the  injunction,  before  quoted,  to  fulfil  their  trust  "  till 
the  appearing  of  Jesus  Christ  ;"  and  particularly  by  there  being  passages  in 
them  which  speak  of"  the  latter  times"  and  "the  last  days."  (1  Tim.  iv, 
2  Tim.  iii.)  These  periods,  as  distinguished  by  the  evils  that  were  to  attend 
them,  did  not,  we  think,  begin  during  the  life  of  Timothy ;  for  what  the 
Apostle  writes  concerning  them  is  in  the  future  tense,  "  in  the  last  days, 
perilous  times  shall  come,"  (fee.  And  it  has  been  well  remarked,  that,  though 
the  Aices  there  mentioned  have  always  existed  in  the  world,  their  being 
spoken  of  as  characteristic  of  the  latter  days  impUes,  that  besides  being  com- 
mon, they  would  be  openly  avowed  and  defended ;  wliich  cannot  be  said 
of  the  primitive  Church.  But  begin  "  the  last  days"  and  their  mischiefs 
when  they  might,  they  have  not  ended  yet ;  neither,  of  course,  is  the  obli- 


40  EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE. 

gation  respecting  tliem,  iinposei]  on  Bishops  by  these  epistles,  ended ;  nor  is 
the  consequent  obligation  of  Christians  ended,  to  support  bishops  in  these 
their  duties,  i.  e.  to  conform  to  episcopacy ;  non-conformity  l>eing  opposition. 
either  active  or  passive.  And  thus  episcopacy  had  and  has  authority  through 
all  these  periods ;  its  authority  is  permanent,  down  to  the  present  age  of  the 
world.  One  direction,  grounded  on  latter-day  defections,  is  particularly  wor- 
thy of  notice ;  "  from  such  turn  [thou]  away,"  or  as  otherwise  translated, 
"  such  turn  [thou]  away."  (2  Tim.  iii.  5.  See  M'Knight.)  In  the  former 
sense,  the  passage  recognises  an  authoritative  discountenance  or  rejection  oi 
false  teachers,  or  of  false  flocks  with  their  teachers,  to  be  exercised  by  an 
individual  church  officer  "  in  the  last  days."  In  the  latter  sense,  it  recog- 
nizes, more  explicitly,  the  power  of  excommunicating  such  persons,  as 
residing  in  such  an  indi^idual  officer,  in  these  periods.  In  either  sense,  epis- 
copacy is  recognized,  as  existing  and  having  authority  "  in  the  last  days" — 
in  other  words,  as  a  permanent  institution,  and  of  permanent  obligation. 

NOTE  E— PAGE  28.  ' 

The  Plea  of  NccesHty. 

It  is  due  to  our  discussion,  to  add  a  few  remarks  on  the  question — whether 
necessity  will  justify  a  departure  from  the  apostolical  or  scriptural  ministry, 
or  the  instituting  of  a  new  ministry  where  that  cannot  be  obtained  '?  On  this 
subject,  the  first  point  to  be  determined  is,  what  is  *  necessity'  1 — '  Absolute 
necessity'  to  assume  the  functions  of  the  ministry  never  can  exist;  salvation 
is  not  indissolubly  connected  with  the  offices  of  a  pastor ;  the  sacraments  are 
not  absolutely,  but  only  "generally  necessary  to  salvation,"  those  who  cannot 
obtain  them  not  being  required  to  par  feake  of  them. — Difficulties  long  insupera- 
ble, preventing  the  attainment  of  an  important  object,  form  the  next  species 
of '  necessity/  and  that  which  is  usually  referred  to  in  this  argument.  And 
here  several  questions  arise — are  the  difficulties  insuperable — have  they  beon 
long  insuperable — is  the  object  so  important  as  to  justify  deviation  from  an 
institution  allowed  to  be  divine  ?  There  should  be  no  reasonable  doubt  on 
either  of  these  points. 

In  our  opinion,  the  last  of  the  above  questions  can  never  be  justly  answered 
in  the  affirmative;  no  plea  can  be  strong  enoxigh  to  release  us  from  divine 
appointments.  What  Goo  has  instituted  for  his  Church  he  will  preserve  in 
his  Church,  and  diflfuse  though  it,  till  the  institution  be  abrogated  by  him,  or 
is  about  to  be  so.  This  appears  to  us  so  clear  a  dictate  of  faith,  so  funda- 
mental a  religious  truth,  that  we  vsdll  not  argue  for  it ;  it  is  an  axiom,  or  at 
least  an  undeniable  postulate.  And  it  ought  to  settle  the  whole  matter.  But 
we  shall  carry  the  discussion  through. 

As  then  to  the  other  two  questions — we  doubt  whether  the  difficulty  of  ob- 
taining an  apostolic  ministrj^,  has  ever  been  insuperable  for  any  greater  period 
than  might  naturally  and  fairly  be  allowed  for  the  purpose — and  we  deny 
that  the  difficulties,  be  they  what  they  might,  have  ever  been  long  insupera- 
ble. And  thus  far,  having  used  only  the  phrase  apostolical  or  scrijrtural 
miriistry,  we  suppose  that  Parity  agrees  with  us. 

We  now  lemind  our  readers  that  we  have,  in  our  essay,  proved  the  apos- 
tolical ministry  to  be  episcopacy.  And,  to  come  at  once  to  the  great  case, 
we  think  it  doubtful  whether  Luther  and  his  associates,  and  Calvin  and  his 
associates,  were  prevented  from  obtaining  episcopacy  by  difficulties  strictly 
insuperable.  It  is  well  known  to  those  acquainted  vdth  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory, that  Novatian,  a  schismatic  Bishop,  induced  three  obscure  Bishops  to 
consecrate  him  :*  and.  fmong  the  multitude  of  papal  Bishops,  could  not 

*  MiLNER,  Vol.  I.  p.  351.  and  EusEBirs,  Book  6. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  41 

those  Reformers  have  found  three,  elevated  or  obscure,  to  give  them  the  suc- 
cession, or  else  to  join  with  them,  and  preside  over  their  purified  Church  1 
and  this,  without  resorting  to  the  culpable  methods  ascribed  to  Novatian  1 
if  this  was  not  clearly  impracticable,  our  present  argument  has  all  that  it 
asks.  Again :  it  is  known  to  the  readers  of  church  history,  that  Frumen- 
tius,  after  collecting  together  a  few  Christians  in  India  (perhaps  Abyssinia,) 
and  converting  some  of  the  natives,  applied  to  Athanasius,  Bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria in  Egjrpt,  for  a  Bishop  to  govern  them,  and  ordain  pastors  for  them  :♦ 
and  could  not  the  Reformers  alluded  to,  failing  with  Romish  Bishops,  have 
gone  or  sent,  to  the  Greek,  or  other  Eastern  churches,  for  the  episcopal  suc- 
cession 1  did  they  ever  make  the  experiment  1  Yet  again :  it  is  recorded, 
that  the  Bohemian  Church  obtained  episcopacy  from  the  Waldenses  :t  and 
could  not  the  Reformers  above  mentioned  have  obtained  it  from  either 
the  Waldenses  or  the  Bohemian  fraternity'?  did  they  attempt  to  do  so, 
although  these  Christian  communities  were  as  much  opposed  to  the  Pope 
as  themselves  *?  In  fine :  Did  either  of  those  Reformers  use  any  efforts 
whatever  for  this  purpose  1  if  not,  how  can  the  difficidty  be  called  insupera- 
ble '?  or  how  can  it  be  made  the  basis  of  the  plea  of  necessity  1  Now,  be  it 
recollected,  we  question  not  the  motives  of  these  eminent  servants  of  God  j 
we  believe  them  to  have  been  pure ;  but,  on  that  point,  they  and  we  stand 
or  fell  only  to  our  common  master ;  motives  have  nothing  to  do  vfith  the 
claims  of  truth.  All  that  we  assert  is,  that  be  the  diflSculties  what  they  might 
in  procuring  episcopacy,  it  is  doubtful  whether  they  were  insuperable ;  and 
that  if  they  were  not  insuperable,  the  case  of '  necessity '  did  not  exist.  We 
may  indeed  carry  this  part  of  our  argument  yet  further,  and  ask,  whether 
any  difficulty  of  magnitude  can  be  Sieged — if  we  may  draw,  from  the  fol- 
lowing quotations  from  Milner,  the  conclusion,  that  Bishops  so  fiaendly  to 
Luther  would  have  consecrated  him  1  "  .  . .  .  John  Thurzo,  Bishop  of  Bres- 
law  in  Silesia.  This  good  prelate  was  descended  from  a  noble  family  in 
Hungary,  and  is  said  to  have  been  the  very  first  papal  Bishop  who,  in  liis  dio- 
cese, was  favourable  to  the  revival  of  pure  Christianity Luther,  on  the 

occasion  of  his  decease,  says  in  a  letter  to  a  friend,  '  in  this  faith  died  John 
ThurzO)  Bishop  of  Breslaw,  of  all  the  Bishops  of  this  age  the  very  best.' " 
"The  pious  Thurzo  died  in  August,  1520;  but  the  reformation  does  not 
appear  to  have  materially  suffered  from  this  loss.  His  successor,  Jame» 
of  Saltza,  trode  in  his  steps.  This  Bishop  appointed ....  John  Hesse  .... 
a  dear  friend  of  Luther,  to  preach  the  gospel  in  the  church  of  St:.  M.  Magdalen- 
at  Breslaw.  Hesse  not  only  explained  and  enforced  the  great  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity from  the  pulpit,  but  for  eight  days  together,  in  a  public  disputation, 
defended  the  same,  and  exposed  the  papal  dogmas  concerning  the  mass  and 
the  ceUbacy  of  the  clergy"*^ — ^to  the  joy  of  Luther,  and  the  vexation  of  the 
Pope.  Bishops  thus  friendly  to  Luther  and  his  cause,  and  thus  appointing 
to  a  conspicuous  station  one  of  his  dear  and  zealous  friends — could  they  not 
have  been  prevailed  on  to  consecrate  him  1  They  were,  of  course,  under  the 
usual  promises  of  fidelity  to  the  Romish  Church ;.  but  these  could  have  been 
no  stronger  in  their  particular  cases,  no  more  binding,  than  those  of  all  the 
fibrst  Reformers,  whether  Bishops  or  Presbyters ;  who  all  held  such  obligations 
to  be  dissolved,  when  they  came  to  perceive  that  the  vital  corruptions  inflexibly 
maintained  by  that  Church  required  their  separation  from  it.  We  therefore 
suggest  the  douot,  whether  there  was  axiy  difficulty  of  magnitude  in  the  way 
of  Luther's  obtaining  episcopacy  for  his  Church. 

*  SocBATES,  B.  1.  c.  xix.  and  Milneb.VoI.  II.  p.  110. 

t  Commenias,  quoted  in  Bowdsn's  Letters,  Vol.  II.  p.  79.     Vol.  III.  332,  342- 
[VoL  1.  p.  223.     U.  p.  163,  2d  ed.] 
t  MiLNEH,  Vol.  V.  p.  259,  260.  . 


42  EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE. 

The  above  considerations  render  almost  unnecessary  a  notice  of  our  remain- 
ing propt>sition — that  insuperable  difficulties  did  not  long  exist.  We  pro- 
ceed however  to  the  proof.  Luther  separated  from  the  Church  of  Rome  in 
1520 ;  the  protest  on  which  the  name  Protestant  was  founded,  was  made  in 
1529;  the  Confession  of  Augsburgh  dates  1530.*  Now,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  possibihty  of  getting  the  episcopal  succession  in  England  under  Henry 
VIII,  who  died  in  1547,  or  under  Edward  VI,  the  Church  in  Sweden  was 
fully  reformed  in  1527,  and  that  in  Denmark  in  1539  ;t  both  were  reformed 
under  Lutheran  influence  ;  and  both  retained  episcopacy.  Will  then  any 
considerate  person  deny,  that,  had  efforts  been  made,  the  succession  might 
have  been  obtained  from  Sweden  not  "long"  after  Luther  abjured  tlie  papal 
authority,  and  before  the  period  when  the  name  Protestant  and  the  Augs- 
burgh Confession  gave  the  finish  to  the  Lutheran  Church  1  Or,  if  that  Church 
had  obtained  episcopacy  ten  years  afterwards,  when  Denmark  could  have 
given  it  to  them,  would  that  have  been  waiting  "long"  for  a  divine  institu- 
tion 7  Where  then  is  the  evidence  on  which  the  plea  of  'necessity'  is 
grounded ! — Let  the  reader  be  reminded,  that  we  are  not  discussing,  in  this 
note,  the  claims  of  the  ministry  which  those  great  reformers  established ;  that 
is  done  in  our  essay.  Neither  are  we  arguing  here  with  those  who  deny 
episcopacy  to  be  a  scriptural  institution ;  they  have  no  occasion  for  the  plea 
of '  necessity.'  Neither  do  we  now  touch  the  question,  whether  this  point  of 
external  order  is  of  importance ;  on  that  subject,  our  essay  has,  we  presume, 
said  enough ;  and  those  who  plead  '  necessity'  allow,  by  so  doing,  the  im- 
portance of  the  rule  departed  from  on  that  account.  The  present  note  is 
intended  for  those  who  grant  the  apostoUc  origin  of  episcopacy,  and  its  obli- 
gation, except  in  the  one  case  of '  necessity,'  reasonably  defined.  And  to 
these  we  say,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  such  '  necessity/  concerning  the 
p(»nt  before  us,  has  ever  existed. 

On  the  subject  of '  supposed  necessity'  (supposed  by  the  persons  originally 
concerned)  it  is  impossible  to  argue,  because  the  case  cannot  be  defined ; 
one  person  calling  that '  necessity'  which  another  denies  to  be  so.  When 
the  difficulty  appears  great,  those  who  yield  to  it  are,  we  doubt  not,  excused 
by  a  merciful  God  ;  and  they  ought  to  be  fully  and  readily  excused  by  men. 
But  this  mild  judgment  of  persons  does  not  establish  either  the  correctness 
of  their  opinions,  or  the  validity  of  their  acts. 

Least  of  all,  can  the  '  supposed  necessity'  which  may  formerly  have  led  to 
a  deviation  from  divine  institutions,  be  a  sound  plea  for  persevering  in  that 
deviation  after  the  '  supposed  necessity'  has  ceased.  It  has  now  been  shown, 
we  think,  that  there  never  was  any  real  *  necessity'  for  dispensing  with  epis- 
copacy.  But,  allovmig  for  former  periods  all  that  is  ever  claimed  on  thai 
score,  there  has  been  no  difficulty  at  all  in  procuring  a  protestant  episcopate, 
or  else  in  finding  one  to  conform  to  and  unite  with,  since  the  Scotch  Bi^ops 
consecrated  Bishop  Seabury,  the  first  on  our  American  Ust. 

NOTE  F--PAGB29. 

The  great  petitio  principii  of  our  opponents  is,  that  the  whole  apostolic 
function,  as  distinguished  from  that  of  Presbyters,  was  transient.  For  this 
supposition,  there  is  neither  proof  nor  hint  in  Scripture.  Inspiration  was 
transient ;  but  in  no  other  respect  can  the  apostleship  be  shown  to  have 
lost  its  original  completeness,  Timothy,  Andronicus,  and  Junia,  are  called 
Apostles ;  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  were  inspired ;  and  though 
Silvanus,  also  denominated  an  Apostle,  was  a  "  prophet"  (Acts  xv.  32.)  it 

*  MosHEiM,  VoL  IV.  p.  50,  71,  8^  t  Ibid.,  Vol.  V.  p.  79,  82. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  4Z 

Will  be  allowed,  we  presume,  that  this  does  not  imply  that  he  possessed  the 
higher  inspiration  of  the  more  eminent  apostolic  fraternity. 

Of  the  sophism  here  censured,  there  are  many  lesser  exemplifications  in 
the  argument  of  Parity,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  following  statement. 

Parity  never  can  prove,  but  always  takes  for  panted  one  or  more  of  the 
following  points — 1.  that  because  the  name  "  Bishop"  is  applied,  in  Scripture, 
to  the  second  order  of  the  ministry,  there  is  no  higher  order  there  mentioned 
— 2.  that  the  transaction  in  Acts  xiii,  was  the  ordination  of  Barnabas  and 
Saul — 3.  that  the  word  "  presbytery"  means,  not  an  office,  but  a  body  of 
Elders,  and — 4.  of  Elders  strictly,  without  an  Apostle,  or — 5.  if  an  Apostle 
was  with  them,  that  he  had  no  more  ordaining  power  than  they — 6.  that 
evangelis^ts  had,  as  such,  supreme  power  over  new  churches  and  their  clergy — 
7,  that  no  indi\iduais  but  the  proper  Apostles  had  such  authority  over 
churches  and  their  clergy  after  their  affairs  were  settled — 8.  that  the  epistles 
to  Timothy  were  meant  for  all  the  clergy  in  Ephesus — 9.  that  Timothy  had 
supreme  authority  in  Ephesus  only  as  an  evangelist,  not  as  an  Apostle,  or  as 
such  a  successor  of  the  Apostles  as  was  afterwards  called  a  Bishop — 10.  that 
Titus  was  an  evangelist — IJ.  that  each  of  the  seven  Churches  of  Asia  con- 
sisted of  but  one  congregation — 12.  that  the  "  angels"  were  but  pastors  of 
single  congregations — 13.  that  they  were  but  moderators  of  bodies  of  Presby- 
ters, &c.  &c.  Some  of  these  points  are  always  taken  for  granted,  in  the 
anti-episcopal  argument  intended  to  rest  on  the  basis  of  Scripture.  We  deny 
them  all,  and  aver  that  Scripture  furnishes  no  evidence,  less  or  greater, 
tiifect  or  indirect^  towards  si^bstantiating  them. 

NOTE   O— PAGE  29. 

On  tJie  objection — that  monarchy,  as  much  as  episcopacy,  is  set  forth  in 

Scripture. 

It  has  been  alleged,  that  as  clear  authority  is  found  in  Scripture  for  mo- 
narchical government  and  its  perpetuity,  as  for  episcopacy  and  its  perpetuity, 

*' submit  yourselves  to the  king  as  supreme,"  (1  Pet.  ii.  13.)  being 

as  strong  a  precept  as  **  submit  yourselves  to  them  that  watch  for  your  souls," 
which  we  have  appUed  to  the  episcopal  ministry  set  forth  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. This  allegation,  however,  is  easily  refuted. — 1.  Where  it  is  said 
that  the  king  or  Roman  emperor  was  supreme,  it  is  also  declared  that  this 
was  the  ordinance  of  man ;  and  it  h  because  it  was  "  the  ordinance  of  man" 
that  submission  to  the  emperor  was  enjoined.  The  office  was  "  the  creation 
(xTicei)  of  man."  Of  course,  man  may  change  that  office  for  another,  and 
thus  substitute  a  republican  for  a  royal  or  imperial  government.  But  the 
Christian  ministry  is  the  appoir  lanent  or  creation  of  God  ;  so,  at  least,  parity 
believes  as  well  as  we ;  and  with  parity  is  our  controversy,  not  with  the 
feeble  claim  of  lay  orders,  or  the  creation  of  ministers  by  mere  human  au- 
thority. To  suppose  the  ordinance  of  man,  because  recognized  and  enjoined 
in  Scripture,  to  be  as  perpetually  binding  as  the  ordinance  of  God,  there 
recognized  and  enjoined,  and  not  retracted,  is,  we  think,  absurd. — 2.  Should 
it  be  further  obje<ied  that  "  the  powers  that  be"  are  declared  to  be  "  ordained 
of  God  ;"  (Rom.  xiii.  1.)  we  answer,  that  nothing  is  here  mentioned  of  kings 
but  orJy  of  "the  higher  powers,"  and  that,  unUke  some  of  the  provincm 
^ople,  the  Romans,  to  whom  that  language  was  addressed,  abhorred  the 
tatle  of  king;*  which  circmnstances  show,  independently  of  other  considera- 
tions, that  it  is  not  to  be  taken  for  granted  that  mere  monarchical  "  powers" 
were  meant  in  this  passage.    But  besides  this ;  It  could  not  have  been  meant 

*  See  Poole's  Synopsis  on  1  Pet.  ii.  13.  and  M'Kkight  on  do. 


44  EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE. 

that  the  then  existing  Roman  authorities  were  ordained  of  God-  for  perpetuity, 
for  both  prophecy  TDan.  vii.  26.  2  These,  ii.  7.)  and  history  attest  the  con- 
trary ;  which  propnecy  is  scripfuraZ  proof  against  that  interpretion.  Neither 
were  the  then  existing  "  powers"  beyond  the  Roman  empire  ordained  to  be 
perpetual.  They  were  all,  therefore,  ordained  of  God  in  only  this  lower 
sense — to  serve  the  purpose  of  civil  government  while  they  should  respect- 
ively last.  In  our  opinon,  "  the  powers  that  6e"  means '  the  estabUshed  civil  au- 
thorities that  at  any  time  exist ;'  submission  to  these  is  made  bmdingon  Chris- 
tians by  the  Chiistian  law ;  just  revolutions,  as  incidental  to  every  ordinance 
or  creation  of  man,  being  exceptions  to  this  rule.  The  object  of  such  pass- 
ages  is,  we  think,  to  consecrate  the  social  principle  which  leads  to  civil  ma- 
gistracy, and  affix  the  seal  of  the  divine  A  uthor  of  Christianity  to  the  maxim, 
that  men  are  not  individually  sovereign,  but  either  jointly  so,  or  else  subject 
to  some  other  common  sovereignty  j  and  that  maxim,  thus  divinely  ratified, 
decides  that  men  must  submit  to  the  lawful  public  authority  under  which 
they  live.  But  this  has  no  bearing  on  the  case  of  the  ministry,  which  was 
not  only  created  and  ordained  of  God,  but  concerning  the  abolition  or  change 
of  which  no  prophecy  or  liint  is  uttered,  which  all  history  attests  to  h^ve  been 
perpetuated  in  the  episcopal  form,  and  which,  if  it  ever  fail,  must  be  again 
appointed  by  God,  and  "ordained"  anew,  not  by  men,  but  " for  men  ;"  since 
its  business  is  "in  things  pertaining  to  God,"  since  the  ministry  of  recon- 
ciliation is  *'  given"  by  God,  and  by  him  *'  committed  to"  men,  or  "  put  in" 
men,  and  since  it  is  an  embassy  from  Christ.  (Heb.  v.  1.  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19, 
20.)  Such  an  office  must  either  be  perpetuated  or  be  lost :  it  caimot  be 
renewed  or  changed,  like  the  ci\il  offices  which  are  the  creation  of  man.  It 
is  clear  then  from  Scripture,  that  civil  government,  though  of  perpetual 
general  obhgation,  is  not  so  in  any  one  of  its  kinds  ;  while  ecclesiastical  po- 
lity is  permanently  binding  in  the  form  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament  - 
3.  It  has  been  said,  that  the  appointment  of  a  king  for  Israel  by  the  Deity,  is 
an  intimation  of  the  divine  will  in  favour  of  royal  government,  and  that 
therefore  that  form  of  civil  magistracy  must  be  as  binding  as  episcopacy.  We 
reply,  that  r/such  an  intimation  of  the  divine  will  existed,  it  would  unques- 
tionably be  binding  on  Christians.  But  this  is  not  the  fact.  On  the  con- 
trary, by  the  prophet  Rosea,  (xiii.  2.)  God  declares  "  I  gave  thee  a  king  in 
mine  anger."  And  the  history  of  the  afiairs  which  led  to  the  appointment 
of  Saul  f  hows,  that  it  was  human  perverseness  and  ambition  which  insisted 
en  having  a  king,  while  the  Deity  opposed  it,  and  even  "protested"  against 
it.  (1  Sam.  yiii.  5—20.  See  also  the  margin  of  verse  9.)  This  factneu- 
tralizesj  not  only  the  inference  in  favour  of  royal  government  drawn  from 
that  case,  but  all  other  allegations  of  the  kind  pretending  scriptural  authority. 
This  fact  shows,  indisputably,  that  God  permits  men  to  choose  for  them- 
selves a  fonn  of  civil  government.  Not  till  the  Israelites  had  freely  and 
even  irreligiously  declared  for  a,  monarchy,  did  the  Almighty  select  the  indi- 
%idual  who  should  be  their  king.  In  forming,  however,  the  government  of 
the  Christian  Church,  man  was  not  even  consulted ;  the  ministry  was  ap- 
pointed by  Christ;  its  appointment  was  placed  on  record  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  ;  from  that  record  we  gather  that  its  model  was  episcopacy  :  and  this 
we  think  a  sufficient  intimation  of  the  will  of  God  that  all  Christians  should 
conform  to  that  model.  The  case  of  monarchical  government  is  in  no  respect 
analogous  with  this. — 4.  Parity  contradicts  its  ovni  principles  in  raising 
objections  to  our  argument  from  the  precepts  contabied  in  Scripture  to  obey 
kings.  Soimd  Presbyterians,  as  well  as  sound  Episcopalians,  believe  that 
the  ecclesiastical  system  delineated  i"n  Scripture  is  of  permanent  obligation. 
We  both  insist  on  ordination  by  succession  from  the  Apostles.  If  this 
succession  is  broken,  ordination  becomes  neither  episcopal  ncr  presbyterian, 
but,  as  we  both  affirm,  of  mere  lay  or  human  authority.  Now,  if  Panty  thus 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  45 

claims  perpetuity  because  it  is  said  to  be  found  in  Scripture,  yet  rejects  the 
perpetuity  of  kingly  government,  also  found  there,  why  should  Episcopalians 
be  censured  for  doing  the  very  same  in  behalf  of  their  system?  The  same 
arguments  which  Parity  uses  in  regard  to  this  point,  Episcopalians  may  also 
use.  If  zYs  friends  are  satisfied  that  "the  king,  as  supreme,"  was  a  tran- 
sient appointment,  so  are  ue.  If  they  are  satisfied,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
the  scriptural  model  of  ecclesiastical  poUty  is  not  a  transient  appointment,  so 
again  are  we.  The  only  question  remaining  is — uhat  is  the  model  of  the 
ministry  contained  in  Scripture'?  is  it  presbj-tery,  or  is  it  episcopacy? 
And  this  is  the  question  which  has  been  discussed,  and  we  hope  to  purpose, 
in  the  foregoing  essay. 

NOTE   H— PAGE  31. 

That  the  duties  of  an  Evangelist,  as  such,  were  of  an  itinerant  missionary 
kind,  is,  so  far  as  the  scriptural  evidence  is  concerned,  merely  taken  Jbr 
granted.  This  point  is  indeed  of  small  moment  in  our  controversy.  But, 
as  all  errors  have  a  tendency  to  dispose  the  mind  to  further  perversions,  we 
think  the  follovsing  corroborations  of  the  position,  that  '  it  is  not  to  be  pre- 
sumed that  an  Evangelist  was  necessarily  a  missionary,'  may  be  useful. 

An  old  commentator,  strongly  anti-episcopal,  speaks  decidedly  against  the 
missionary  functions  of  evangelists,  and  gives,  in  this  respect,  a  just  view  of 
their  duties,  as  deduced  from  Scripture  only.  "  These  were  followers  [secta- 
tores,  imitators]  of  the  Apostles,  and  they  sometimes  abode  [sxibsistebant]  in 
a  particular  church,  teaching  and  defending  the  Apostles'  doctrine.  Hence 
[the  Scripture]  often  takes  them  for  the  [ipso]  minister  of  the  word,  (the  pas- 
tor, we  presume,  of  some  such  particular  church,)  as  in  2  Tim.  iv.  'do  the 
work  of  an  evangelist,' that  is,  diligently  and  watchfully  teach.  Such  also 
was  PhiUp  in  Acts  xxi."  See  Aretius  on  Ephes.  iv.  11.  It  is  obvious  that 
this  writer  considered  "  evangelists"'  as  rather  settled  than  migratory  teach- 
ers, and  as  being  oflen  proper  pastors.  Another  reference  will  show  this 
more  fiilly.  "  Do  the  work  of  an  evangelist,  that  is,  faithfully  teaching.  I 
suppose  an  evangeUst  to  mean  one  who  was  principally  employed  in  preach- 
ing the  gospel,  yet  was  not  an  Apostle.  For  these  (Apostles)  with  the  highest 
authority  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  travelled  }ntheT  and  thither  for  the  purpose 
of  instituting  and  reforming  [instaurandd  et  rcformandi]  churches,  wherever 
a  place  was  opened.  But  Evangelists,  without  [citra,  on  this  side,  short  of)] 
the  office  of  apostleship,  preached  to  them  (these  churches)  with  the  au- 
thority of  the  next ;  [office ;]  sometimes  they  presided  over  particular  churches 
as  Bishops  (presbyter-bishops.)  Such  was  Timothy,  both  an  Evangefist  and 
a  Bishop."  See  Aretius  on  2  Tim.  iv.  5.  Our  author  assigns  travelling 
or  missionary  duty  to  the  Apostles ;  he  regards  them  as  the  founders  and 
settlers  of  churches ;  but  the  functions  of  Evangelists  he  represents  as  chiefly 
of  a  preaching  and  pastoral  kind. — We  have  made  these  quotations  in  aid  of 
our  assertion,  that  the  missionary  character  of  Evangelists  ought  not  to  be 
taken  for  granted.  The  author  is  wrong  however  in  saying  that  no  Evan- 
geUsts  were  Apostles,  since  Timothy  was  both.  He  is  also  wrong  in  calling 
Timothy  a  presbyter-bishop.     Our  essay  has  settled  these  points. 

Charles  I.,  in  his  controversy,  in  the  Isle  of  Wight,  with  the  Presbyterian 
Divines,  very  soundly  remarks— (p.  6.)  "  setting  aside  men's  conjectures,  you 
cannot  make  it  appear  by  any  text  of  Scripture,  that  the  ofiice  of  an  Evangelist 
is  such  as  you  have  described  it.  The  work  of  an  Evangelist  which  St.  Paul 
exhorteth  Timothy  to  do,  seems  by  the  context  (2  Tim.  iv.  5.)  to  be  nothing 
but  diligence  in  preaching  the  word,  notwitlistanding  all  impediments  and 
oppositions."  To  this  the  Presbyterian  Divines  only  allege  the  various 
recorded  travels  of  Timothy  and  Titus.    But  these  travels  were  cominon  to 


46  EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE. 

them  and  the  Apostles ;  and  as  much  prove  them  to  have  held  tliis  latter 
office,  as  that  of  Evangelists, 

MiLNKR  (Vol.  I,  p.  56,  59)  thinks  that  Philip,  the  Evangelist,  resided  in 
Cesarea  twenty  or  thirty  years,  from  the  time  he  reached  there  after  bap- 
tizing the  Etluopian,  (Acts  viii.  40.,)  till  Paul  lodged  at  his  house,  as  men- 
tioned in  Acts  xxi.  8, 

In  fine :  There  is  no  scriptural  proof  that  Evangelists,  as  such,  were  migra- 
tory or  itinerant ;  nay,  that  sort  of  proof  favours  the  opposite  opinion,  that 
they  did  not  travel  merely  in  the  fulfilment  of  their  evangelizing  function. 
And  we  therefore  assert,  that,  so  far  as  appears  from  the  inspired  record, 
Timothy  might  have  "  done  the  work  of  an  Evangelist,"  without  being  in 
any  sense  a  missionary  Bishop,  but  exclusively  a  diocesan.  "We  say  this, 
only  because  it  is  due  to  truth  and  accuracy,  not  because  our  argument 
requires  it.  That  Timothy  was  a  proper  Bishop  we  have  proved  in  the 
essay ;  and  it  is  of  no  consequence  whether  he  exercised  that  oflScc  as  a 
missionary,  or  a  diocesan,  or  both.  It  is  expedient,  probably  in  the  highest 
degree,  that  every  Bishop,  whatever  extra  duties  he  may  perform  as  a  mis- 
sionary, be  a  diocesan  or  coadjutor ;  but  this  is  not  essential.  In  the  first  found 
ing  of  Christianity,  the  apostolical  or  episcopal  labours  of  almost  every  indi- 
vidual in  the  office  were  necessarily  diffused  widely.  Yet  the  docile  student 
of  Scripture  will  not  fail  to  remark,  that  it  leaves  Timothy  in  Ephesus,  and 
the  seven  "  angels"  connected  with  their  respective  Churches ;  to  which 
the  case  of  James  is  to  be  added,  in  the  Church  of  Jerusalem.  (Acts  xv. 
13,  19  ;  xxi.  18.)  Thus  much  may  be  securely  claimed,  in  addition  to  tha 
revealed  argument  for  episcopacy  in  itself,  in  favour, of  diocesan  arrange- 
ments. 


No.  47. 


THE  END. 


TIMOTHY    AN    APOSTLE. 


In  the  essay  entitled,  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  it 
was  noticed  that  Timothy  is  called  an  "  apostle"  in  that  sacred 
volume.  Almost  no  use,  however,  was  made  of  that  fact  in  the 
main  argument  of  the  essay,  as  it  was  believed  to  be  new  matter, 
and  indeed  was  not  discovered  by  the  author  till  his  piece  was 
written.  It  was  chiefly  adduced  to  show  the  fallacy  of  ascrib- 
ing Timothy's  superior  power  to  his  being  an  evangelist,  when 
he  had  supreme  power  as  an  apostle.  The  grounds  on  which  it 
was  asserted  that  Timothy  has  this  title  in  Scripture,  were  briefly 
given  in  a  note  : — 

'  See  1  Thess.  ii.  6,  compared  with  1  Thess.  i.  1 .  Paul,  Silva- 
nus  (or  Silas,)  and  Timothy,  are  all  included  as  "  apostles."  In 
verse  18,  Paul  speaks  of  himself  individually,  not  probably  before. 
It  is  not  unusual,  indeed,  for  St.  Paul  to  use  the  plural  number  of 
himself  only ;  but  the  words  "  apostles^^  and  "  our  own  souls,"^^ 
(verse  8,)  being  inapplicable  to  the  singular  use  of  the  plural 
number,  show  that  the  three  whose  names  are  at  the  head  of 
this  epistle  are  here  spoken  of  jointly.  And  thus  Silas  and  Timo- 
thy are,  with  Paul,  recognised  in  this  passage  of  Scripture  as 
"  apostles." ' 

The  passage  thus  referring  to  Paul,  Silvanus,  and  Timothy, 
is — "  we  might  have  been  burdensome,  as  the  apostles  of  Christ  ; 

but  .  .  :  .  .  we  were  willing  to  have  imparted  unto  you 

our  own  soitls."  The  words  "  apostles"  and  "  souls"  are  obvi- 
ously plural  in  the  plural  sense,  and  show  that  Paul  was  not 
speaking  of  himself  alone,  but  of  all  the  three  who  joined  in  the 
epistle. 

A  writer  in  the  Connecticut  Observer  (February  14th)  denies 
the  application  of  this  language  to  the  three  individuals  men- 
tioned, and  asserts  that  these  plural  words  have  the  singular 
sense,  and  are  meant  of  Paul  only.   His  remarks  are  as  follows : — 

"  The  proof  adduced  is  a  comparison  of  1  Thess.  ii.  6,  with 
the  same,  i.  1.  The  writer  says,  '  Paul,  Silvanus,  and  Timothy, 
are  all  included  as  apostles.'  Paul  unites  Silvanus,  or  Silas,  and 
Timothy,  in  the  salutation  with  himself,  1  Thess.  i.  1 ;  and  in 
the  next  chapter,  verse  6,  he  says, '  We  might  have  been  burden- 
some to  you  as  apostles  of  Christ.'  The  question  is,  did  Paul 
mean  to  include  the  others  with  himself  in  this  passage  ?  The 
writer  in  the  Protestant  Episcopalian  affirms  that  he  did.  We 
say  he  did  not — at  least,  it  cannot  be  proved  that  he  did.  The  use 
of  the  plural '  we^  does  not  prove  it.  For  Paul  often  uses  '  we' 
when  he  intends  only  himself-,  and  in  letters  too  in  which  others 
are  joined  with  him  in  the  salutation.    To  mention  no  other,  we 

(  47  ) 


48  TLMOTHY   AN   APOSTLE. 

have  an  instance  in  this  very  chapter,  verse  18.  Compare,  also, 
1  Thess.  iii.  1,  with  the  same,  verse  6.  Neither  do  the  plural 
expressions,  '  apostles''  and  '  our  own  souls'  prove  it.  We  have 
instances  of  similar  modes  of  expression  in  other  parts  of  his 
writings,  when  he  himself  only  is  intended.  For  example  of 
the  first,  '  apostles,^  compare  2  Cor.  i.  24,  with  the  same.  i.  23, 
where  ^helpers'  is  used  to  denote  the  singular,  as  '  u-e'  is  to 
denote  the  same.  For  parallel  example  to  '  our  own  souls,^  as 
denoting  the  singular,  vide  2  Cor.  vii.  3,  compared  with  verse  7, 
where  '  in  our  hearts^  refers  to  Paul  solely." 

On  this  extract  several  observations  may  be  made  in  reply. 

The  note  from  "  Episcopacy,"  &c.,  allows  that  St.  Paul  often 
uses  the  plural  for  the  singular  in  speaking  of  himself.  So  far 
we  all  agree. 

The  reference  to  2  Cor.  i.  23,  24,  will  not  help  the  cause  of 
parity ;  it  only  shows  a  transition  from  the  singular  to  the  plural 
in  the  plural  sense,  which  is  very  usual  where  the  writer  alludes 
to  both  himself  and  others  bearing  any  similar  relation  to  the 

persons  addressed  ;  "  to  spare  you  /  came  not  as  yet 

not  that  we  have  dominion  over  your  faith,  but  are  helpers  of 
your  joy."  1.  Surely  common  sense  will  suggest  that  if  more 
"helpers"  than  Paul  can  be  found,  that  expression  would  be 
sounder  than  if  applied  to  him  alone.  Hence  it  would  be  com- 
petent to  say,  without  express  proof,  that  by  "  we"  he  here 
means  apostles  or  ministers  in  general.  2.  We  find,  however, 
only  five  verses  before,  the  persons  specially  alluded  to  as 
"we;"  they  are  "Paul,  Silvanus,  and  Tiraotheus,"  (verse  19.) 
These,  then,  are  the  "helpers"  of  the  passage;  and  thus  that 
word  is  proved  by  the  context  to  have,  not  a  singular,  but  a 
plural  meaning.  3.  McKnight  gives  a  general  plural  sense  ;  not 
that  "  we  apostles"  lord  it  over  you,  but  are  joint  workers  of 
your  joy.  4.  Doddridge  gives  another  general  plural  sense, 
"  but  we,  even  I,  and  all  the  faithful  ministers  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  are  joint  helpers  of  your  joy."  Instead,  therefore,  ol 
weakening  the  argument  that  Timothy  was  an  apostle,  the 
Observer  has  rather  strengthened  it,  by  pointing  to  an  additional 
case  of  Paul's  using  the  plural  number  without  giving  it  the 
meaning  of  the  singular. 

The  appeal  to  2  Cor.  vii.  3,  is  not  more  fortunate ;  the  word 
"  hearts"  has  there  unquestionably  its  natural  plural  signification, 
including  other  "hearts"  beside  that  of  Paul,  "  for  I  have  said 
before^  that  ye  are  in  our  hearts?^  1.  Common  sense,  as  before 
urged,  requires  us  to  give  plural  meanings  to  such  plural  words, 
if  it  can  be  done  consistently,  which  is  the  case  here,  making 
"  our  hearts"  to  allude  to  ministers  generally.  2.  St.  Paul,  in 
this  passage,  refers  to  a  previous  expression  used  by  him,  "  I 
have  said  before."  This  reference  carries  us*  to  verses  11,  12, 
of  the  sixth  chapter,  "  O  ye  Corinthians,  our  mouth  is  open 

•  See  margin,  McKnight,  Poole's  Synop.,  Poole's  Annot. 


TIMOTHY   AN    APOSTLE.  49 

unto  you,  our  heart  is  enlarged."  Well,  the  Observer  may  say,  the 
"  hearts"  plural  of  the  one  passage,  must  mean  the  "  heart"  sin- 
gular of  the  other,  and  both  refer  to  Paul's  affection  only.  No, 
we  reply,  "  our  heart"  is  a  general  or  collective  phrase,  (see  Rom. 
XV.  6,)  equivalent  to  "our  hearts;"  and  thus  others  than  Paul 
are  included.  What,  then,  shall  decide  between  these  opposite 
assertions  ?  the  context.  From  the  words  "  our  heart,"  (vi,  11,) 
back  to  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  continuously  (except  one 
verse  in  a  parenthesis,)  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  "  ministry."  To 
that  body  he  alludes  every  time  the  first  person  plural  is  used 
throughout  the  passage.  Most  certainly,  then,  "  our  mouth  and 
our  heart"  relate  not  to  St.  Paul  alone,  but  to  "  the  ministry" 
spoken  of,  with  a  special  reference  to  those  of  that  sacred  order 
connected  with  the  Corinthians,  or  perhaps  to  himself  and  Tim- 
othy, who  address  this  epistle  to  them.  Now,  what  this  passage 
means,  the  other  quoted  by  the  Observer  means,  since  Paul  refers 
from  the  latter  to  the  former.  Of  course  the  words  "  our  hearts" 
have  a  plural  signification,  applying  not  to  Paul  alone,  but  in  con- 
junction with  others.  And  thus  falls  the  Observer's  remaining 
objection  to  the  scriptural  proof  of  the  apostleship  of  Timothy. 

In  the  Connecticut  Observer  of  September  17th,  there  is  the 
following  passage  respecting  the  apostleship  of  Timothy ;  it  is 
comprised  in  a  reply  to  a  writer  in  the  Episcopal  Watchman, 
under  the  signature  of  Ignatius. 

"  Ignatius  insists  upon  it  that  Timothy  was  an  apostle  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  Paul  was  an  apostle.  This  argument  is  so 
wrought  into  the  texture  of  some  modern  treatises  on  Episco- 
pacy, that  it  deserves  a  passing  remark.  The  claim  has  been 
but" lately  made  by  Episcopalians,  and  rests  solely  on  1  Thess. 
i.  1,  compared  with  chapter  ii.  6.  In  our  remarks  on  the  reviewer 
of  the  '  Tribute  to  the  Memory  of  the  Pilgrims,''  a  few  months 
ago,  we  introduced  the  opinion  of  a  biblical  critic  second  to 
none  in  this  country,  that  the  use  of  the  plural  '  apostles'  in 
1  Thess.  ii.  6,  and  of  '  our  own  souls,^  verse  8,  does  not  prove 
that  Timothy  was  an  apostle.  Moreover,  according  to  the  author 
of  '  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture,'  who  first,  so  far  as  we 
Know,  urged  these  passages  in  proof  of  the  apostleship  of  Timo- 
thy, this  epistle  was  written  ten  years,  at  least,  before  Paul 
admonished  Timothy,  '  Let  no  man  despise  thy  youth?  If  he 
had  been  at  least  ten  years  an  apostle,  he  was  admitted  to  that 
office  very  young,  probably  at  about  the  age  of  twenty.  And 
how  shall  we  account  for  it  that  when  Paul  joins  Timothy  with 
himself  in  salutation  to  churches,  he  calls  himself  an  '  apostle/ 
and  Timothy  only  a  ^  brother  V — vide  2  Cor.  i.  1;  Col.  i.  1; 
Philemon  verse  1.  He  speaks  of  Timothy  just  as  he  does  of 
Sosthenes,  who,  we  believe,  was  never  supposed  to  be  an  apos- 
tle; vide  1  Cor.  i.  1.  At  this  very  time,  too,  when  it  is  now 
claimed  that  Paul  calls  Timothy  an  apostle,  according  to  Arch- 
bishop Potter,  Timothy  was  attending  on  Paul  as  a  deacon.'* 
5 


50  TIMOTHY  AN  APOSTLE. 

■'  On  this  passage  the  following  remarks  suggest  themselves:— 

The  fact  that  Timothy  was  an  apostle,  may,  perhaps,  be  said 
to  be  "  wrought  into  the  texture  of  the  treatise^''  entitled  "  Epis- 
copacy Tested  by  Scripture,"  but  it  is  not  "  wrought  into  the 
texture"  of  the  main  argument  therein  contained.  All  that 
relates  to  that  fact  might  be  struck  from  the  "  treatise"  without 
essential  injury.  Still  it  is  a  fact,  and  is  therefore  adduced  with 
perfect  propriety  in  its  bearings  on  the  controversy  between  our 
cause  and  that  of  parity. 

This  is  the  second  time  the  Connecticut  Observer  has  "  wrought 
into  the  texture"  of  its  columns  the  opinion  of  "  a  biblical  critic, 
second  to  none  in  the  country,"  that  Timothy  was  not  an  apos- 
tle. Is  this  reasoning?  Who  can  answer  a  name?  Let  the 
critic's  arguments  be  given,  and  it  may  be  seen  whether  they 
are  sound.  If  the  remarks  in  the  Observer  of  February  14, 
were  the  arguments  of  this  eminent  critic,  they  were  answered 
in  the  Protestant  Episcopalian  for  March,  which  answer  has 
never,  so  far  as  known,  been  replied  to.  And  if  what  is  now 
added,  in  the  above  extract,  be  also  his,  may  it  not  be  feared 
that  his  fund  of  reasoning  on  this  subject  is  running  low  ?  At 
all  events,  these  additional  observations,  whether  his  or  not,  are 
peculiarly  weak,  as  will  now  be  shown. 

First  among  these  new  objections  to  the  apostleship  of  Timo- 
thy, at  the  time  1  Thessalonians  was  written,  is  the  remark, 
that  he  must  have  been  made  an  apostle  very  young.  The  answer 
is  easy,  being  nothing  more  than  the  objection  itself— he  was  an 
apostle  at  a  very  early  age.  Does  this  fact  prove  or  disprove 
anything?  Certainly  not.  Timothy,  we  know,  was  very  early 
pious  and  versed  in  the  Scriptures ;  whether  this  was  one  of 
St.  Paul's  reasons  for  placing  him  so  soon  in  the  apostleship, 
cannot  now  be  determined,  and  is  of  no  consequence ;  it  is 
enough  that  Scripture  calls  him  an  apostle  in  the  year  54,  the 
date  of  the  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  when  he  may  have 
been  no  more  than  twenty  years  old,  but  was  probably  twenty- 
two  or  three. 

Next  objection :  Why  does  Paul,  in  some  places,  call  himself 
an  apostle,  and  Timothy  only  a  iDrother  ?  asks  the  Observer. 
Really  it  is  too  late  to  inquire,  but  the  fact  has  not  the  least 
bearing  on  the  point  in  question.  The  apostles  were  brethren 
to  each  other,  the  elders  were  brethen  of  the  apostles,  so  were 
the  deacons,  so  were  the  laity.  The  circumstance,  therefore,  of 
Paul's  calling  Timothy  a  brother,  while  he  calls  himself  an 
apostle,  proves  no  more  that  Timothy  was  not  an  apostle,  than 
it  does  that  he  was  not  a  clergyman  at  all,  but  only  a  layman. 

Next :  Paul's  calling  Sosthenes  a  brother,  proves  just  as  much 
as  his  giving  Timothy  that  appellation. 

Lastly :  As  to  Archbishop  Potter's  opinion,  that  Timothy  was 
but  a  deacon  at  the  time  St.  Paul  terms  him  an  apostle,  in 
I  Thess.  ii.  6,  it  is  obviously  a  mistake,  since  that  passage 
decides  against  him.    The  cause  of  the  mistake  of  this  able 


TIMOTHY  AN  APOSTLE.  51 

defender  of  Episcopacy  seems  to  have  been  twofold.  He  over- 
looked the  passage  referred  to,  which  speaks  of  Timothy  as  an 
apostle ;  and  he  was  misled  by  the  word  SiaKovowrw  in  Acts 
xix.  22,  where  it  is  said  that  Timothy  and  Erastus  "  ministered" 
unto  Paul ;  which  he  supposes  to  mean  "  were  Paul's  deacons." 
This  is  but  the  old  error,  so  often  exposed,  of  arguing  from 
names  instead  of  facts.  On  the  next  page  (105,)  the  Archbishop 
repeats  it ;  stating  that  elders  were  proper  bishops,  because  they 
are  said  tvivKoiTciv.  He  might  as  well  have  allowed  that  Paul 
himself  was  but  a  deacon,  because  it  is  written,  "  Who  then  is 
Paul^  and  who  is  Apollos,  but  ministers  iioKovoi,  by  whom  ye 
believed?  But  on  the  falHcy  of  reasoning  from  words  only, 
of  this  kind,  without  facts,  or  against  facts,  nothing  more 
need  be  added;  it  is  fully  exposed  in  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by 
Scripture."  ";. 

May  I  not,  in  conclusion^  venture  to  express  the  hope  that  the 
evidence  for  the  apostleship  of  Timothy  is  strengthened  by  these 
ineflfectual  attempts  to  overthrow  it  ? 

H.  U.  0- 


Prom  the  duarterly  Christian  Spectator. 

REVIEW. 


Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture.  By  the  Right  Reverend  Henry  U. 
Onderdonk,  D.  D.,  Assistant  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania.  New- York :  pub- 
lished by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Tr%x  Society,  pp.  46. 

The  history  of  this  tract  is  this.  It  was  first  published  as  an 
essay,  in  the  "  Protestant  Episcooalian"  for  November  and 
December,  1830.  It  was  then  issued  m  a  pamphlet  form,  without 
the  name  of  the  author.  It  was  next  requested  for  publication 
by  the  "  Trustees  of  the  New-York  Protestant  Episcopal  Press ;" 
and  after  being  amended  by  the  author,  with  an  addition  of 
several  notes,  it  was  printed  in  the  form  of  a  tract,  and  as  such 
has  had  an  extensive  circulation. 

The  tract  is  one  which  has  strong  claims  on  the  attention  of 
those  who  are  not  Episcopalians.  The  name  and  standing  of 
the  author  will  give  it  extensive  publicity.  The  fact  that  it 
comes  from  the  "  Press"  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  coun- 
try ;  that  it  is  issued  as  one  of  their  standing  publications,  and 
that  it  will,  therefore,  be  circulated  with  all  the  zeal  which 
usually  characterizes  associations  organized  for  defending  the 
exclusive  views  of  any  religious .  body ;  and,  most  of  all,  the 
character  of  the  tract  itself,  and  the  ground  assumed  by  it,  give 
it  a  title  to  our  attention  which  can  be  claimed  by  hardly  any 
single  tract  of  the  kind  ever  published  in  our  country.  Our 
views  of  it  may  be  expressed  in  one  word.  It  is  the  best  written, 
the  most  manly,  elaborate,  judicious,  and  candid  discussion,  in  the 
form  of  a  tract,  which  we  have  seen  on  this  subject.  Our  Epis- 
copalian friends  regard  it  as  unanswerable.  They  have  provided 
amply  for  its  circulation,  and  rely  on  its  making  converts 
wherever  it  is  perused ;  and,  in  a  tone  which  cannot  be  mis- 
understood, they  are  exulting  in  the  fact,  that  to  this  day  it  has 
been  left  entirely  unnoticed  by  the  opponents  of  prelacy.*  And 
we  wonder,  too,  that  it  has  not  been  noticed.  There  are  men 
among  us  who  seem  to  consider  the  external  defence  of  the 
Church  as  intrusted  to  their  peculiar  care ;  who  delight  to  be 
seen  with  the  accoutrements  of  the  ecclesiastical  military  order, 
patrolling  the  walls  of  Zion ;  who  parade  with  much  self- 
complacency,  ^as  sentinels,  in  front  of  the  temple  of  God  ; 
who  are  quick  to  detect  the  movements  of  external  enemies  j 

♦  Has  the  tract  '  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture'  been  answered  1  This,  wa 
beUeve,  is  neither  the  first  time  of  asking,  nor  the  second,  nor  the  third. 

Protestant  Episcopalian, 
,(62) 


REVIEW — EPISCOPACY   TESTED  BY    SCRIPTURE.  53 

and  who  are.  admirably  adapted  to  this  species  of  warfare. 
They  seem  to  have  little  heart  for  the  interior  operations  of  the 
Church,  and  seldom  notice  them,  except  to  suggest  doubts  of 
the  expediency  of  some  new  measure  proposed,  or  to  promote 
discord  and  strife  by  laying  down  rules  for  the  conduct  of  those 
who  are  laboring  in  the  direct  work  of  saving  souls.  Much  do 
we  marvel  that  these  men  have  suffered  this  tract  to  lie  so  long 
unnoticed. 

We  have  never  regarded  the  Episcopal  controversy  with  any 
very  special  interest.  Our  feelings  lead  us  to  dwell  on  subjects 
more  directly  connected  with  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  We  have 
no  taste  for  the  species  of  warfare  which  is  often  waged  in 
guarding  the  outposts  of  religion.  Christianity,  we  have  sup- 
posed, is  designed  to  act  directly  on  the  hearts  of  men,  and  we 
regard  it  as  a  matter  of  very  little  moment  in  what  particular 
church  the  spirit  is  prepared  for  its  eternal  rest,  provided  the 
great  object  be  accomplished  of  bringing  it  fairly  under  the 
influence  of  the  Gospel. 

But  we  propose,  for  the  reasons  already  suggested,  to  examine 
the  arguments  of  this  tract.  We  do  it  with  the  highest  respect 
for  the  author ;  with  a  full  conviction  that  he  has  done  ample 
justice  to  his  cause;  that  he  has  urged  on  his  side  of  the  ques- 
tion all  that  can  be  advanced ;  and  we  enter  on  the  task  with 
sincere  pleasure  at  meeting  an  argument  conducted  with  entire 
candor,  without  misrepresentation,  and  with  a  manifest  love  of 
truth.  Our  wish  is  to  reciprocate  this  candor ;  and  our  highest 
desire  is  to  imitate  the  chastened  spirit,  the  sober  argumentation, 
and  the  Christian  temper  evinced  in  this  tract.  It  is  firm  in  its 
principles,  but  not  illiberal ;  decided  in  its  views,  but  not  censo- 
rious ;  settled  in  its  aims,  but  not  resorting  to  sophism  or  ridi- 
cule, to  carry  its  points.  There  is,  evidently,  in  the  author's 
mind,  too  clear  a  conviction  of  the  truth  of  what  he  advances  to 
justify  a  resort  to  the  mere  art  of  the  logician ;  too  manifest  a 
love  of  the  cause  in  which  he  is  engaged  to  expose  himself  to 
the  retort  which  might  arise  from  lofty  declamation,  or  the 
expression  of  angry  passions  toward  his  opponents.. 

One  object  which  we  have  in  view  in  noticing  this  tract  is,  to 
express  our  gratification  that  the  controversy  is  at  last  put 
where  it  should  have  been  at  first,  on  an  appeal  to  the  Bible 
alone.  Never  have  we  been  more  disgusted  than  at  the  mode 
in  which  the  Episcopal  controversy  has  usually  been  conducted. 
By  common  consent,  almost,  the  writers  on  both  sides  have 
turned  from  the  New  Testament,  where  the  controversy  might 
have  been  brought  to  a  speedy  issue,  to  listen  to  the  decisions 
of  the  fathers  j  and,  as  might  have  been  expected,  have 

"■^ — -  foufld  no  en(^  in,  wandering  mj^zes  lost," 

It  was  the  policy  of  the  friends  of  prelacy  to  da  so  j  and  it  was 
the  folly  of  their  opponents  to  suffer  them  to  choose  the  field  of 
debate,  and  to  weary  themselves  in  an  effort  to  fix  the  meaning, 

5* 


54  HE  VIEW — EPISCOPACy 

tp  secure  the  consistency,  and  obtain  the  suffrages  of  the  fathers. 
Fqll  well  was  it  known,  we  believe,  by  the  friends  of  Episco- 
pacy in  other  times,  that  the  New  Testament  could  furnish  a 
most  slender  support  for  their  claims.  In  the  times  of  the 
Papacy  it  had  always  been  defended  by  an  appeal  to  the  fathers. 
The  system  had  risen  sustained,  not  even  professedly^  by  the 
authority  of  the  Bible,  but  by  the  traditions  of  the  elders.  The 
ranks  and  orders  of  the  Papal  priesthood  could  be  defended  only 
by  the  authority  of  a  church  which  claimed  infallibility,  and 
which  might  dispense,  therefore,  with  the  New  Testament. 
The  reformers  came  forth  from  the  bosom  of  the  Papacy  with 
much  of  this  feeling.  They  approached  this  subject  with  high 
reverence  for  the  opinions  of  past  times ;  with  a  deference  for 
the  fathers,  nourished  by  all  the  forms  of  their  education,  by  all 
existing  institutions,  and  by  the  reluctance  of  the  human  mind 
to  break  away  from  the  established  customs  of  ages.  On  the 
one  hand,  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  found  their  proofs  in  the 
common  law  of  the  Church,  the  institutions  which  had  existed 
"time  whereof  the  memory  of  man  runneth  not  to  the  con- 
trary ;"  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  opponents  of  prelacy  were 
equally  anxious  to  show  that  they  had  not  departed  from  the 
customs  of  the  fathers,  and  that  the  defence  of  their  institutions 
might  be  found  in  times  far  remote,  and  in  records  which 
received  the  veneration,  and  commanded  the  confidence  of  the 
Christian  world.  Into  this  abyss  both  parties  plunged.  In  this 
immense  chaos  of  opinions  and  interpretations,  into  these  mov- 
ing, disorganized,  jostling  elements,  where,  as  in  the  first  chaos, 
light  struggled  with  darkness,  and  confusion  reigned,  they  threw 
themselves,  to  endeavor  severally  to  find  the  support  of  their 
opinions.  "  Whatsoever  time,  or  the  heedless  hand  of  blind 
chance,"  says  Milton,  "  hath  drawn  down  from  of  old  to  this 
present,  in  her  huge  drag-net,  whether  fish  or  sea-weed,  shells 
or  shrubs,  unpicked,  unchosen,  those  are  the  fathers."  With 
those  who,  according  to  Mosheim,*  deemed  it  not  only  lawful, 
but  commendable  to  deceive  and  lie  for  the  sake  of  truth  and 
piety,  it  would  be  singular  if  any  point  could  be  settled  that 
involved  controversy.  With  men  who  held  to  every  strange  and 
ridiculous  opinion ;  to  every  vagary  that  the  human  mind  can 
conceive  ;t  it  would  be  strange  if  both  sides  in  this  controversy 
did  not  find  enough  that  had  the  appearance  of  demonstration 
to  perplex  and  embarrass  an  opponent  ad  libitum.  In  examin- 
ing this  controversy  as  it  was  conducted  in  former  times,  we 
have  been  often  amused  and  edified  at  the  perfect  complacency 
with  which  a  passage  from  one  of  the  fathers  is  adduced  in 
defence  of  either  side  of  the  question,  and  the  perfect  ease  with 
which,  by  a  new  translation,  or  by  introducing  a  few  words  of 
the  context,  or  more  frequently  by  an  appeal  to  some  other  part 


»  Murdoch's  Mosheim,  vol.  i.  p.  159. 

t  See  Tillemont's  Ecclesiastical  History,  passim^ 


TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  55 

of  the  same  author,  not  studious  himself  of  consistency,  and 
probably  having  no  settled  principles,  the  passage  is  shown  to 
mean  just  the  contrary  ;  and  then  again  a  new  version,  or  yet 
another  quotation,  shall  give  it  a  new  aspect  and  restore  it  to 
its  former  honors.*  Thus  the  fathers  became  a  mere  football 
between  the  contending  parties;  and  thus,  in  this  contro- 
versy, the  weary  searcher  for  truth  finds  no  solid  ground. 
Eminently  here  "  he  which  is  first  in  his  cause  seemeth  just ; 
but  his  neighbor  cometh  and  searcheth  him."  Prov.  xviii.  17. 
To  this  wearisome  and  unsatisfactory  toil  he  is  doomed  who 
will  read  all  the  older  controversies  on  Episcopacy.    There  he, 

"  O'er  bog,  or  steep,  through  strait,  rough,  dense  or  rare, 
With  head,  hands,  wings  or  feet,  pursues  his  wray, 
And  swims,  or  sinks,  or  wades,  or  creeps,  or  flies." 

Were  we  to  adduce  the  most  striking  instance  of  the  plastic 
nature  of  this  kind  of  proof,  we  should  refer  to  the  epistles  of 
Ignatius.  To  our  eyes,  they  seem  to  be  a  plain  straight  forward 
account  of  the  existence  of  Presbyterianism  in  his  time.  They 
are  substantially  such  a  description  as  a  man  would  give, 
writing  in  the  inflated  and  exaggerated  manner  in  which  the 
orientals  wrote,  of  Presbyterianism  as  it  exists  in  the  United 
States.  Yet  it  is  well  known*  that  with  the  utmost  pertinacity 
*iiose  letters  have  been  adduced  as  proving  the  doctrine  of  Epis- 
copacy. And  so  confident  have  been  the  assertions  on  the  sub- 
ject, that  not  a  few  Non-episcopalians  have  given  them  up  as 
unmanageable,  and  have  stoutly  contended-,  what  may  be  very 
true,  that  no  inconsiderable  part  of  them  are  forgeries. 

Any  man  can  see  what  a  hopeless  task  is  before  him  if  he 
endeavors  to  settle  this  controversy  by  the  authority  of  the 
fathers.  The  waste  of  time,  and  talent,  and  learning,  on  this 
subject,  is  fitted  deeply  to  humble  the  heart.  And  even  yet  the 
passion  has  not  ceased.  Even  now,  men  high  in  office  and  in 
rank,  leave  the  New  Testament  and  appeal  to  the  fathers. 
Episcopacy  is  discarded,  not  principally  because  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  a  stranger  to  it,  but  because  Jerome  was  not  a  prelatist ; 
it  is  rejected,  not  because  it  cannot  be  made  out  from  the  Bible, 
but  because  it  is  a  matter  of  debate  whether  the  fathers  teach  it 
or  not. 

From  this  unprofitable  and  endless  litigation  we  are  glad  to 
turn  to  the  true  merits  of  the  case.  We  rejoice  sincerely  that 
one  man  can  be  found  who  is  willing  to  bring  to  this  subject 
the  great  principle  of  the  Protestant  reformation,  that  all 
religious  opinions  are  to  be  tested  by  the  Scriptures.  And  we 
especially  rejoice  to  see  this  principle  so  decisively  advanced  by 
a  man  of  the  talents  and  official  rank  of  Dr.  Onderdonk ;  and 
that  it  is  so  prominently  avowed,  by  sending  forth  from  the 
«  Protestant  Episcopal  Press"  a  tract  defending  this  principle. 

♦  See  the  Letters  of  Dr.  Miller  and  Dr.  Bowden  on  Episct^cy,  passim. 


56  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

It  indicates  a  healthy  state  of  things  in  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
this  country.  It  will  save  endless  disputes  about  words,  and 
much  useless  toil  in  endeavoring  to  give  consistency  and  sense 
to  the  father§.  This  mode  of  reasoning,  too,  will  soon  decide 
the  controversy.  Long  have  we  wished  to  see  this  matter 
brought  to  so  obvious  and  so  just  an  issue ;  and  long  have  we 
expected  that,  when  this  should  be  the  case,  the  matter  would 
be  soon  decided.  Hereafter  let  it  be  held  up  as  a  great  prin- 
ciple, from  which,  neither  in  spirit  nor  in  form,  we  are  ever  to 
depart,  that  if  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Episcopacy  are  not  found 
in  the  Scriptures  they  are  to  be  honestly  abandoned,  or  held, 
as  Cranmer  held  them,  as  matters  of  mere  expediency.  Let  this 
truth  go  forth,  never  to  be  recalled,  and  let  every  man  who  attempts 
to  defend  the  claims  of  bishops  appeal  to  the  Bible  alone.  On 
this  appeal,  with  confidence,  we  rest  the  issue  of  this  case. 

The  great  principle  on  which  the  argument  in  this  tract  is 
conducted  is  indicated  in  its  title ;  it  is  further  stated  at  length  in 
the  tract  itself.  Thus,  in  the  opening  sentence,  "  The  claim  of 
Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  institution,  and  therefore  obligatory 
on  the  Church,  rests  fundamentally  on  the  one  question — Has  it 
the  authority  of  Scripture  ?  If  it  has  not,  it  is  not  necessarily 
binding."  Again,  on  the  same  page,  "  No  argument  is  worth 
taking  into  the  account,  that  has  not  a  palpable  bearing  on  the 
clear  and  naked  topic — the  scriptural  evidence  of  Episcopacy." 
Having  stated  this  principle,  the  writer  proceeds  to  remark,  that 
"the  argument  is  obstructed  with  many  extraneous  and  irrele- 
vant difficulties,  which,  instead  of  aiding  the  mind  in  reaching 
the  truth  on  that  great  subject,  tend  only  to  divert  it  and 
occupy  it  with  questions  not  affecting  the  main  issue."  The 
first  object  of  the  "  essay"  is  then  stated  to  be,  "  to  point  out 
some  of  these  extraneous  questions  and  difficulties,  and  expose 
either  their  fallacy  or  their  irrelevancy."  "  The  next  object  will 
be  to  state  the  scriptural  argument." 

In  pursuing  this  plan,  the  writer  introduces  and  discusses,  as 
one  of  these  extraneous  difficulties,  the  objection  that  Episco- 
pacy is  inimical  to  a  free  government.  He  next  notices,  as 
"  another  of  these  extraneous  considerations,  the  comparative 
standing  in  piety^  as  evinced  by  the  usual  tokens  of  moral  and 
spiritual  character,  of  the  members  respectively  of  the  Episcopal 
and  Non-episcopal  churches."  A  third  "  suggestion"  noticed  is, 
"  that  the  external  arrangements  of  religion  are  but  of  inferior 
importance,  and  that  therefore  all  scruple  concerning  the  sub- 
ject before  us  may  be  dispensed  with."  p.  5,  A  fourth,  "  appa- 
rently formidable,  yet  extraneous  difficulty  often  raised,  is,  that 
Episcopal  claims  unchurch  all  Non-episcopal  denominations." 
p.  6.  This  consequence,  the  author  of  the  tract  says  is  not  by 
him  allowed.  "  But  granting  it  to  the  fullest  extent,"  it  is  asked, 
"what  bearing  has  it  on  the  truth  of  the  single  proposition  that 
Episcopacy  is  of  divine  ordinance  ?"  A  fifth  among  these  extra- 
neous points,  is  "  the  practice  of  adducing  the  authority  of 


TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  57 

individuals,  who,  although  eminent  in  learning  and  piety,  seem 
at  least  to  have  contradicted  themselves  or  these  public  standards 
on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy."  p.  7.  The  last  objection  noticed, 
as  not  affecting  the  ultimate  decision  of  the  controversy,  is,  "  that 
though  the  examples  recorded  in  Scripture  should  be  allowed 
to  favor  Episcopacy,  still  that  regimen  is  not  there  explicitly 
commanded."  p.  9. 

To  most  of  the  observations  under  these  several  heads  we 
give  our  hearty  assent.  And  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  con- 
troversy is  thus  reduced  to  very  narrow  limits;  and  that,  if 
these  principles  are  correct,  numberless  tomes  which  have  been 
written  on  both  sides  of  the  question  are  totally  useless.  We 
are  glad  that  all  this  extraneous  matter  is  strucii.  off,  and  should 
rejoice  if  every  consideration  of  this  kind  were  hereafter  to  be 
■laid  out  of  view. 

In  discussing  the  second  topic  proposed,  "  the  scriptural  evi- 
dence relating  to  this  controversy,"  (p.  11,)  the  first  object  of 
Dr.  Onderdonk  is  to  slate  the  precise  point  in  debate.  It  is 
then  observed  that  "  parity  declares  that  there  is  but  one  ordei^ 
of  men  authorized  to  minister  in  sacred  things,  all  of  this  order 
being  of  equal  grade,  and  having  inherently  equal  spiritual 
rights.  Episcopacy  declares  that  the  Christian  ministry  was 
established  in  three  orders,  called  ever  since  the  apostolic  age, 
bishops,  presbyters  or  elders,  and  deacons,  of  which  the  highest 
only  has  a  rif  ht  to  ordain  and  confirra,  that  of  general  super- 
vision in  a  diocese,  &c."  p.  11.  The  main  question  is  then 
stated,  correctly,  to  be,  that  "  concerning  the  superiority  of 
bishops ;"  and  the  object  of  the  essay  is  to  prove  that,  according 
to  the  New  Testament,  such  an  order  existed,  and  was  clothed 
with  such  peculiar  powers,  p.  11.  Let  it  not  be  forgotten  that 
this  is  the  main  point  in  the  case,  and  that  if  this  is  not  made 
out,  so  as  to  be  binding  on  the  Church  every  where,  the  claims  of 
Episcopacy  fall  to  the  ground. 

In  endeavoring  to  establish  this  point,  the  author  maintains, 
^'  that  the  apostles  ordained,"  and  denies  that  elders  (presbyters) 
ever  did.  p.  14.  In  supporting  this  position  the  plan  of  argu- 
ment is  to  show,  that  "  the  apostles  and  elders  had  not  equal 
power  and  rights."  p.  14.  An  attempt  is,  therefore,  made  to 
prove  that  the  difference  between  the  two  orders  is,  that  the 
former  had  the  power  of  ordination,  the  latter  not.  In  pursuing  the 
reasoning  (p.  16)  the  writer  endeavors  to  show,  that  "  there  is 
no  scriptural  evidence  that  mere  elders  (presbyters)  ordained." 
Under  this  branch  of  the  argument,  he  examines  the  texts  which 
have  usually  been  adduced  in  favor  of  Presbyterian  ordination. 
Having  shown,  as  he  supposes,  that  these  passages  do  not  prove 
that  they  did  thus  ordain,  Dr.  O.  next  proceeds  to  the  last  branch 
of  the  subject,  viz.,  that  "  this  distinction  between  elders  and  a 
grade  superior  to  them,  in  regard  especially  to  the  power  of  ordain- 
ing, was  so  persevered  in,  as  to  indicate  that  it  was  2i  permanent 
arrangement,  and  not  designed  to  be  but  temporary."  p.  23. 


58  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

This  is  the  outline  of  the  argument.  It  manifestly  embraces 
the  essential  points  of  the  case.  And  if  these  positions  cannot 
be  maintained,  Episcopacy  has  no  binding  obligation  on  men, 
and  such  a  claim  should  be  at  once  abandoned.  This  argument 
we  propose,  with  great  respect;  but  with  entire  freedom,  to 
examine.  And  we  expect  to  show  that  the  point  is  not  made 
out,  that  the  New  Testament  has  designated  a  superior  rank  of 
church  officers,  intrusted  with  the  sole  power  of  ordination,  and 
general  superintendence  of  the  Church. 

In  entering  on  this  discussion,  we  shall  first  endeavor  to  ascer- 
tain the  real  point  of  the  controversy,  and  to  show  that  the 
scripture  authorities  appealed  to,  do  not  establish  the  point  main- 
tained by  Episcopalians.  In  pursuance  of  this,  we  remark,  that 
the  burden  of  proof  lies  wholly  on  the  friends  of  Episcopacy. 
They  set  up  a  claim — a  claim  which  they  affirm  to  be  binding 
on  all  the  churches  of  every  age.  It  is  a  claim  which  is  specific, 
and  which  must  be  made  out,  or  their  whole  pretensions  fall. 
In  what  predicament.it  may  leave  other  churches  is  not  the 
question.  It  would  not  prove  Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  origin, 
could  its  friends  show  that  Presbyterianism  is  unfounded  in 
the  Scriptures ;  or  that  Congregationalism  has  no  claims  to 
support ;  or  that  Independency  is  unauthorized ;  or  even  that 
lay-ordination  is  destitute  of  direct  support.  The  question  after 
all  might  be,  whether  it  was  the' design  of  the  Apostles  to  estab- 
lish any  particular  form  of  church  government,  any  more  than 
to  establish  a  fixed  mode  of  civil  administration?  This  question 
we  do  not  intend  td  examine  now,  neither  do  we  design  to 
express  any  opinion  on  it.  We  say  only,  that  it  is  a  question  on 
which  much  may  be  said,  and  which  should  not  be  considered 
as  settled  in  this  controversy.  The  specific  point  to  be  made 
out  is,  that  there  is  scriptural  authority  for  that  which  is  claimed 
for  the  bishops.  And  we  may  remark  further,  that  this  is  not  a 
claim  which  can  be  defended  by  any  doubtful  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, or  by  any  very  circuitous  mode  of  argumentation.  As  it  is 
expected  to  affect  the  whole  organization  of  the  Church;  to 
constitute,  in  fact,  the  peculiarity  of  its  organization ;  and  to 
determine,  to  a  great  extent  at  least,  the  validity  of  all  its  ordi- 
nances, and  its  ministry ;  we  have  a  right  to  demand  that  the 
proof  should  not  be  of  a  doubtful  character,  or  of  a  nature  which 
is  not  easily  apprehended  by  the  ordinary  readers  of  the  New 
Testament. 

We  repeat  now,  as  of  essential  importance  in  this  controversy, 
that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  the  friends  of  Episcopacy.  It  is 
theirs  to  make  out  this  specific  claim.  To  decide  whether  they 
can  do  so,  is  the  object  of  this  inquiry. 

The  first  question  then,  is.  What  is  the  claim ;  or,  what  is  the 
essential  point  which  is  to  be  made  out  in  the  defence  of  Epis- 
copacy 1  This  claim  is  stated  in  the  following  words:  (p.  11:) 
"  Episcopacy  declares,  that  the  Christian  ministry  was  estab- 
lished in  three  orders,  called,  ever  since  the  apostolic  age,  bishops, 


TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  59 

presbyters  or  elders,  [if  so,  why  do  they  now  call  the  second 
order  priests?}  and  deacons,  of  which  the  highest  only  has  the 
right  to  ordain  and  confirm,  that  of  the  chief  administration  in  a 
diocese,  and  that  of  the  chief  administration  of  spiritual  disci- 
pline, besides  enjoying  all  the  powers  of  the  other  grades."  The 
main  question,  as  thus  stated,  relates  to  the  authority  of  bishops, 
and  the  writer  adds,  "  If  we  cannot  authenticate  the  claims  of 
the  Episcopal  office,  (the  office  of  bishops,)  we  will  surrender 
those  of  our  deacons,  and  let  all  power  be  confined  to  the  one 
office  of  presbyters."  The  same  view  of  the  main  point  of  the 
controversy  is  given  by  Hooker,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Polity, 
b.  vii.  §  2. 

It  will  be  seen  that  several  claims  are  here  set  up  in  behalf  of 
bishops.  One  is,  the  right  of  ordination  :  a  second,  that  of  con- 
firmation ;  a  third,  that  of  general  supervision  ;  a  fourth,  that  of 
the  general  administration  of  discipline.  These  are  separate 
points  to  be  made  out,  and  a  distinct  argument  might  be  entered 
into  to  show  that  neither  of  them  is  founded  on  the  authority  of 
the  Scriptures.  To  enter  on  this  discussion  would  require  more 
time  and  space  than  we  can  now  spare.  Nor  is  it  necessary, 
for  we  presume  the  Episcopalian  would  be  willing  to  stake  the 
whole  cause  on  his  being  able  to  make  out  the  authority  of  ordi- 
nation to  lie  solely  in  the  bishop.  For,  obviously,  if  that  cannot 
be  made  out,  all  the  other  pretensions  are  good  for  nothing ;  and, 
as  the  writer  of  this  tract  limits  his  inquiries  to  this  single  point, 
we  shall  confine  our  remarks  to  this  also. 

The  question  then  is,  Has  a  bishop  the  sole  power  of  ordain- 
ing 1  Is  setting  apart  to  a  sacred  office, — to  the  office  of  preach- 
ing and  administering  the  sacraments,  confined  in  the  New  Test- 
ament exclusively  to  this  order  of  ministers?  The  Episcopalian 
claims  that  it  is.  We  deny  it,  and  ask  him  for  the  explicit  proof 
of  a  point  so  simple  as  this,  and  one  which  we  have  a  right  to 
expect  he  will  make  out,  with  very  great  clearness,  from  the 
sacred  Scriptures. 

The  first  proof  adduced  by  the  author  is,  that  the  apostles  had 
the  sole  power  of  ordaining.  This  is  a  highly  important  point 
in  the  discussion,  or  rather,  the  very  hinge  of  the  controversy.  We 
cannot,  therefore,  but  express  our  surprise,  that  a  ^VTiter  who 
can  see  the  value  and  bearing  of  an  argument  so  clearly  as 
Dr.  Onderdonk,  should  not  have  thought  himself  called  upon  to 
devote  more  than  two  pages  to  its  direct  defence ;  and  that,  with- 
out adducing  any  explicit  passages  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
argument  stated  in  these  two  pages,  or  these  parts  of  three  pages, 
(14,  15, 16,)  rests  on  the  assumption  that  the  apostles  ordained. 
"  That  the  apostles  ordained,  all  agree."  Now,  if  this  means 
any  thing  to  the  purpose,  it  means  that  they  ordained  as  apos- 
tles ;  or  that  they  were  set  apart  to  the  apostolic  office  for  the 
purpose  of  ordaining.  But  this  we  shall  take  the  liberty  to  deny, 
and  to  prove  to  be  an  unfounded  claim.  Having  made  this 
assumption,  the  writer  adds,  that  a  distinction  is  observed  in  the 


60  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

New  Testament  between  "  the  apostles  and  elders,"  the  "  apos- 
tles, and  elders,  and  brethren."  He  next  attempts  to  show,  that 
this  distinction  was  not  made  because  they  "  were  appointed  by 
Christ  personally,"  nor  because  "  they  had  seen  our  Lord  after 
his  resurrection  ;"  nor  "because  of.  this  power  of  working  mira- 
cles ;"  and  then  the  writer  adds,  "  It  follows,  therefore,  or  will 
not  at  least  he  questioned^'''' — a  qualification  which,  by  the  way, 
seems  to  look  as  if  the  writer  had  himself  no  great  confidence  in 
the  consecutiveness  of  the  demonstration,  "  that  the  apostles 
were  distinguished  from  the  elders,  because  they  were  superior 
to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights."  p.  15.  This  is  the 
argument,  and  this  isithe  whole  of  it.  On  the  making  out  of  this 
point  depends  the  stupendous  fabric  of  E^piscopacy.  Here  is 
the  corner-stone  on  which  rests  the  claims  of  bishops ;  this  the 
position  on  which  the  imposing  and  mighty  superstructure  has 
been  reared.  Our  readers  will  join  with  us  in  our  amazement, 
that  this  point  has  not  been  made  out  with  a  clearer  deduction  of 
arguments,  than  such  as  were  fitted  to  lead  to  the  ambiguous 
conclusion,  *'  it  follows,  therefore,  or — ." 

Now,  the  only  way  of  ascertaining  whether  this  claim  be  well 
founded,  is  to  appeal  at  once  to  the  New  Testament.  The  ques- 
tion, then,  which  we  propose  to  settle  now,  is.  Whether  the 
Apostles  were  chosen  for  the  distinctive  and  peculiar  work  of 
ordaining  to  sacred  oflices  ?  This  the  Episcopalian  affirms. 
This  we  take  the  liberty  of  calling  in  question. 

The  Evangelists  have  given  three  separate  and  full  accounts 
of  the  appointment  of  the  Apostles.  One  is  recorded  by  Matthew 
ch.  X. ;  another  by  Mark,  iii.  12,  &c. ;  the  third  by  Luke,  ch.  vi. 
They  were  selected  from  the  other  disciples,  and  set  apart  to 
their  work  with  great  solemnity.  Luke  vi.  The  act  was  per- 
formed in  the  presence  of  a  great  multitude,  and  after  the 
Saviour  had  passed  the  night  in  prayer  to  God.  Luke  vi.  12. 
The  instructions  given  to  them  on  the  occasion  occupy,  in  one 
part  of  the  record,  (Matt.)  the  entire  chapter  of  forty- two  verses. 
The  directions  are  given  with  very  great  particularity,  embrac- 
ing a  great  variety  of  topics,  evidently  intended  to  guide  them 
in  all  their  ministry,  and  to  furnish  them  with  ample  instruc- 
tion as  to  the  nature  of  their  office.  They  refer  to  times  which 
should  follow  the  death  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  were  designed 
to  include  the  whole  of  their  peculiar  work.    Matt.  x.  17-23. 

Now,  on  the  supposition  of  the  Episcopalian,  that  the  peculi- 
arity of  their  work  was  to  ordain,  or  that  "  they  were  distin- 
guished from  the  elders  because  they  were  superior  to  them  in 
ministerial  powers  and  rights,"  (p.  15,)  we  cannot  but  regard  it 
as  unaccountable  that  we  find  not  one  word  of  this  here.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  any  such  distinguishing  "  power 
and  rights."  There  is  nothing  which  can  be  tortured  into  any 
such  claim.  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  as  on  another  occa- 
sion he  sent  forth  seventy  disciples  at  one  time,  (Lukex.  1-16,) 
usually  regarded  by  Episcopalians  as  the  foundation  of  the 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  61 

second  order  of  their  ministers :  (see  "  The  Scholar  Armed  :") 
and  there  is  not  the  slightest  intimation  gfiven  that  they  were  to 
be  inferior  to  the  apostles  in  tlie  power  of  ordaining  or  super- 
intending the  churches.  We  do  not  know  what  explanation  the 
Episcopalian  will  give  of  this  remarkable  omission  in  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  primitive  bishops. 

This  omission  is  not  the  less  remarkable  in  the  instructions 
which  the  Lord  Jesus  gave  to  these  same  Apostles,  after  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead.  At  that  time  we  should  assuredly 
have  expected  an  intimation  of  the  existence  of  some  such  peculiar 
power.  But  not  ttje  slightest  hint  occurs  of  any  such  exclusive 
authority  and  superintendence.  Matthew,  (xxviii.  18-20,)  Mark 
(xvi.  15-18.)  and  Luke  (xxiv.  47-49,)  have  each  recorded  these 
parting  instructions.  They  have  told  us  that  he  directed  them 
to  remain  in  Jerusalem  (Luke)  until  they  were  endued  with 
power  from  on  high,  and  then  to  go  forth  and  preach  the  Gospel 
to  every  creature;  but  not  a  solitary  syllable  about  any  exclusive 
power  of  ordination ;  about  their  being  a  peculiar  order  of 
ministers  :  about  their  iransmittino-  the  peculiarity  of  the  apos- 
tolic office  to  others.  We  should  have  been  glad  to  see  some 
explanation  of  this  fact.  We  wish  to  be  apprized  of  the  reason, 
if  any  exist,  why,  if  the  peculiarity  of  their  office  consisted  in 
"  superiority  of  ministerial  powers  and  rights,"  neither  at  their 
election  and  ordination,  nor  in  the  departing  charge  of  the 
Saviour,  nor  in  any  intermediate  time,  we  ever  hear  of  it ;  that 
even  the  advocates  for  the  powers  of  the  bishop  never  pretend 
to  adduce  a  solitary  expression  that  can  be  construed  into  a 
reference  to  any  such  distinction. 

We  proceed  now  to  observe,  that  there  is  not  any  where  else 
in  the  New  Testament,  a  statement  that  this  was  the  peculiarity 
of  their  apostolic  office.  Of  this  any  man  may  be  satisfied  who 
will  examine  the  New  Testament.  Or  he  may  find  the  proof  in 
a  less  laborious  way,  by  simply  looking  at  the  fact,  that  neither 
Dr.  Onderdonk,  nor  any  of  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  pretend 
to  adduce  any  such  declaration.  The  Apostles  often  speak  of 
themselves ;  the  historian  of  their  doings  (Luke)  often  mentions 
them  ;  but  the  place  remains  yet  to  be  designated,  after  this  con- 
troversy has  been  carried  on  by  keen-sighted  disputants  for 
several  hundred  years,  which  speaks  of  any  such  peculiarity  d( 
their  office. 

This  point,  then,  we  shall  consider  as  settled,  and  shall  feel  at 
liberty  to  make  as  much  of  it  as  we  possibly  can  in  the  argu- 
ment. And  we  might  here  insist  on  the  strong  presumption 
thus  furnished,  that  this  settles  the  case.  We  should  be  very 
apt  to  regard  it  as  decisive  in  any  other  case.  If  two  men  go 
from  a  government  to  a  foreign  court,  and  one  of  them  claims 
to  be  a  plenipotentiary,  and  affirms  that  the  other  is  a  mere 
private  secretary,  or  a  consul,  we  expect  that  the  claimant  will 
sustain  his  pretensions  by  an  appeal  to  his  commission  or 
instructions.  If  he  maintains  that  this  is  the  peculiarity  of  his 
6 


63  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

office,  though  he  may  "enjoy  all  the  powers  of  the  other 
grades,"  (p.  11,)  we  expect  to  find  this  clearly  proved  in  the 
documents  which  he  brings.  If  he  is  mentioned  by  no  name 
that  designates  his  office,  as  the  Episcopalian  admits  the  bishop 
is  not,  (pp.  12, 13,) — if  his  commission  contains  no  such  appoint- 
ment, and  if  we  should  learn  that  specific  instructions  were 
given  to  him  at  his  appointment,  and  again  repeated  in  a  solemn 
manner  when  he  left  his  native  shores, — we  should  at  least  look 
with  strong  suspicions  on  these  remarkable  claims.  Would  not 
any  foreign  court  decide  at  once  that  such  pretensions,  under 
such  circumstances,  were  utterly  unfounded?' 

We  proceed  now  to  inquire,  whether  it  is  possible  io  ascertain 
the  'peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office?  for  it  must  be  conceded 
that  there  was  something  to  distinguish  the  apostles  from  the 
other  ministers  of  the  New  Testament.  Here,  happily,  we  are 
in  no  way  left  in  the  dark.  The  Saviour,  and  the  Apostles,  and 
sacred  writers  themselves,  have  given  an  account  which  cannot 
be  easily  mistaken ;  and  our  amazement  is,  that  the  writer  of 
this  tract  has  not  adverted  to  it.  The  first  account  which  w^ 
adduce  is  from  the  lips  of  the  Saviour  himself.  Jfn  those  solemn 
moments  when  he  was  about  to  leave  the  world, — when  the  work 
of  atonement  was  finished, — and  when  he  gave  the  Apostles  their 
final  commission,  he  indicated  the  nature  of  their  labors,  and 
the  peculiarity  of  their  office,  in  these  words :  (Luke  xxiv.  48 :) 
"  And  ye  are  witnesses  of  these  things.  And,  behold,  I  send 
the  promise  of  my  Father  upon  you,"  &c.  The  Object  of  their 
special  appointment,  which  he  here  specifies,  was,  that  they 
should  be  witnesses  to  all  nations.  (Comp.  v.  47,  and  Matthew 
xxviii.  18,  19.)  The  "  things"  of  which  they  were  to  bear  wit- 
ness, he  specifies  in  the  preceding  verse.  They  were  his  suffer- 
ings in  accordance  with  the  predictions  of  the  prophets  :  "  thus 
it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behoved  Christ  to  suflfer ;"  and  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead :  "  and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the 
third  day."  These  were  the  points  to  bear  "  witness,"  to  which 
they  had  been  selected ;  and  these  were  the  points  on  which  they, 
in  fact,  insisted  in  their  ministry.  See  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
passim. 

We  would  next  remark,  this  is  expressly  declared  to  be  the 
"  peculiarity"  of  the  apostolic  office.  It  was  done  so  at  the  elec- 
tion of  an  apostle  to  fill  up  the  vacated  place  of  Judas.  Here, 
if  the  peculiar  design  had  been  to  confer  "  superiority  in  minis- 
terial rights  and  powers,"  we  should  expect  to  be  favored  with 
some  account  of  it.  It  was  the  very  time  when  we  should 
expect  them  to  give  an  account  of  the  reason  why  they  filled  up 
the  vacancy  in  the  college  of  apostles,  and  when  they  actually  did 
make  such  a  statement.  Their  words  are  these :  (Acts  i.  21, 22 :) 
"  Wherefore,  of  these  men  which  have  companied  with  us,  all 
the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among  us,  begin- 
ning from  the  baptism  of  John,  unto  that  same  day  when  he  was 
taken  up  from  us,  must  one  he  ordained  to  be  a  witness  WITH 


TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  63 

US  of  his  resurrection."  This  passage  we  consider  to  be  abso- 
lutely decisive  on  the  point  before  us.  It  shows,  first,  for  what 
purpose  they  ordained  him;  and,  second,  that  they  were  ordained 
for  the  same  purpose.  Why  do  we  hear  nothing  on  this  occa- 
sion of  their  "  superiority  of  ministerial  rights  and  powers  1" 
why  nothing  of  their  peculiar  prerogative  to  ordain?  why 
nothing  of  their  "  general  superintendence"  of  the  Church  1 
Plainly,  because  they  had  conceived  of  nothing  of  this  kind,  as 
entering  into  their  original  commission  and  peculiar  design. 
For  this  purpose  of  bearing  testimony  to  the  world  of  the  fact 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  Messiah,  they  had  been  originally 
selected.  For  this  they  had  been  prepared,  by  a  long  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  Saviour.  They  had  seen  him  ;  had  been 
with  him  in  various  scenes,  fitted  to  instruct  them  more  fully  in  his 
designs  and  character;  had  enjoyed  an  intimate  personal  friend- 
ship with  him,  (1  John  i.  1,)  and  were  thus  qualified  to  go  forth 
as  "  witnesses"  of  what  they  had  seen  and  heard  ;  to  confirm 
the  great  doctrine  that  the  Messiah  liad  come,  had  died,  and  had 
risen,  according  to  the  predictions  of  the  prophets.  We  just  add 
here,  that  these  truths  were  of  sufficient  importance  to  demand 
the  appointment  of  twelve  honest  men  to  give  them  confirma- 
tion. It  has  been  shown,  over  and  over  again,  that  there  was 
consummate  wisdom  in  the  appointment  of  witnesses  enough 
to  satisfy  any  reasonable  mind,  and  yet  not  so  many  as  to  give 
it  the  appearance  of  tumult  or  popular  excitement.  The  truth 
of  the  whole  scheme  of  Christianity  rested  on  making  out  the 
fact,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  had  risen  from  the  dead  ;  and  the 
importance  of  that  religion  to  the  welfare  of  mankind,  demanded 
that  this  should  be  substantiated  to  the  conviction  of  the  world. 
Hence  the  anxiety  of  the  eleven  to  complete  the  number  of  the 
original  witnesses  selected  by  the  Saviour,  and  that  the  person 
chosen  should  have  the  same  acquaintance  with  the  facts  that 
they  had  themselves. 

It  is  worthy,  also,  of  remark,  that  in  the  account  which  the 
historian  gives  of  their  labors,  this  is  the  main  idea  which  is 
presented.  Acts  ii.  32.  "  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up,  where- 
of we  are  witnesses;"  v.  32,  "And  we  are  witnesses  of  these 
things ;"  x.  39-41,  "  And  we  are  witnesses  of  all  things  which 
he  did  both  in  the  land  of  the  Jews  and  in  Jerusalem,  whom 
Ihey  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree.  Him  God  raised  up  the 
third  day,  and  showed  him  openly ;  not  to  all  the  people,  hut 
unto  WITNESSES  chosen  before  of  God,  even  unto  us"  &c.  In 
this  place  we  meet  with  another  explicit  declaration,  that  this 
was  the  object  of  their  original  appointment.  They  were 
"chosen"  for  this,  and  set  apart  in  the  holy  presence  of  God 
to  this  work.  Why  do  we  not  hear  any  thing  of  "  their  supe- 
riority in  ministerial  rights. and  powers?"  Why  not  an  inti- 
mation of  the  power  of  confirming,  and  of  general  superin- 
tendence? We  repeat  that  it  is  not  possible  to  answer  these 
questions,  except  on  the  supposition  that  they  did  not  regard 


64  REVIEW — EPISCOPACy 

any  such  powers  as  at  all  entering  into  the  peculiarity  of  their 
commission. 

Having  disposed  of  all  that  is  said  in  the  New  Testament,  so 
far  as  we  know,  of  the  original  design  of  the  appointment  to  the 
apostolic  office,  we  proceed  to  another  and  somewhat  independ- 
ent source  of  evidence.  The  original  number  of  the  apostles 
was  twelve.  The  design  of  their  selection  we  have  seen.  For 
important  purposes,  however,  it  pleased  God  to  add  to  their 
number  one,  who  had  not  been  a  personal  attendant  on  the 
ministry  of  the  Saviour,  and  who  was  called  to  the  apostleship 
four  years  after  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  Now 
this  is  a  case,  evidently,  which  must  throw  very  important  light 
on  our  inquiries.  It  is  independent  of  the  others.  And,  as  he 
was  not  a  personal  observer  of  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  ;  as 
he  was  not  an  original  "  witness"  in  the  case,  we  may  expect  in 
the  record  o(  his  appointment,  a  full  account  of  his  "  superiority 
in  ministerial  rights  and  powers."  If  such  superiority  entered 
into  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office,  this  was  the  very  case 
wliere  we  expect  to  find  it.  His  conversion  was  subsequent  to 
the  resurrection.  He  was  to  be  employed  extensively  in  found- 
ing and  organizing  churches.  He  was  to  have  intrusted  to  him 
almost  the  entire  Pagan  world.  Comp.  Rom.  xv.  IG.  His  very 
business  was  one  that  seemed  to  call  for  some  specific  account  of 
"superiority  in  ministerial  rights,"  if  any  such  rights  were 
involved  in  the  apostolic  ofl^ce.  How  natural  to  expect  a  state- 
ment of  such  rights ;  and  an  account  of  the  "  general  superin- 
tendence" intrusted  to  him,  as  an  apostle !  Let  us  look,  there- 
fore, and  see  how  the  case  stands.  We  have  three  distinct 
accounts  of  his  conversion  and  appointment  to  the  apostleship, 
in  each  of  which  the  design  of  his  appointment  is  stated.  Acts 
xxii.  14,  15.  In  his  discourse  before  the  Jews  he  repeats  the 
charge  given  to  him  by  Ananias,  at  Damascus :  "  The  God  of 
our  fathers  hath  chosen  thee,  &c.  For  thou  shalt  be  his  witness 
tmio  all  men  of  what  thou  hast  seen  and  heard.^^  Again  (Acts 
xxvi.  16,)  in  his  speech  before  Agrippa,  Paul  repeats  the  words 
addressed  to  him  by  the  Lord  Jesds  in  his  original  commission  : 
"  I  liave  appeared  unto  thee  for  this  pwpose^  to  make  thee  a 
minister  vimfjirriv  and  a  witness  of  those  things,"  &c.  Again, 
(Acts  xxiii.  11,)  in  the  account  which  is  given  of  his  past  and 
future  work,  it.  is  said  :  "  As  thou  hast  testified  of  me  in  Jerusa- 
lem, so  must  thou  bear  witness  also  at  Rome." 

This  is  the  account  which  is  given  of  the  call  of  Saul  of  Tar- 
sus to  the  apostolic  office.  But  where  is  there  a  single  syllable 
of  any  "  superiority  in  ministerial  powers  and  rights,"  as  consti- 
tuting the  peculiarity  of  his  office  ?  We  respectfully  ask  the 
writer  of  this  tract,  and  ail  other  advocates  of  Episcopacy, 
to  point  to  us  a  "  light  or  shadow"  of  any  such  Episcopal 
investment.  We  think  their  argument  demands  it.  And  if  there 
is  no  such  account,  neither  in  the  original  choice  of  the  twelve, 
nor  in  the  appointment  of  Matthias,  nor  in  the  selection  of  the 


TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  65 

Apostle  to  the  Gentiles ;  we  take  the  liberty  to  insist  with  firm- 
ness on  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  causes  which  operated 
to  produce  the  omission  of  the  very  gest  of  their  ofl&ce  accord- 
ing to  Episcopacy.  We  insist  on  being  told  of  soTtie  reasons, 
prudential  or  otherwise,  which  made  it  proper  to  pass  over  the 
very  vitality  of  the  original  commission. 

But  we  have  not  done  with  the  apostle  Paul.  He  is  too 
important  a  "witness"  for  us,  as  well  as  for  the  purpose  for. 
which  he  was  appointed,  to  be  dismissed  without  further  atten- 
tion. It  has  been  remarked  already,  that  he  was  not  a  personal 
follower  of  Jesds  of  Nazareth,  and  was  not  present  at  his  death 
and  ascension.  It  may  be  asked,  then,  how  could  he  be  a  wit- 
ness, in  the  sense  and  for  the  purposes  already  described? 
Let  us  see  how  this  was  provided  for.  We  transcribe  the 
account  from  his  own  statement  of  the  address  made  to  him  by 
Ananias.  Acts  xxii.  14.  "  The  God  of  our  fathers  hath  chosen 
thee,  that  thou  shouldst  know  his  will,  and  see  that  Just  One, 
and  shouldst  hear  the  words  of  his  mouth."  That  he  had  thus 
seen  him,  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove.  See  1  Cor.  xv.  8 ;  Acts 
ix.  5, 17.  The  inference  which  we  here  draw  is,  that  he  was 
permitted  to  see  the  Lord  Jesus  in  an  extraordinary  manner, 
for  the  express  purpose  of  qualifying  him  to  be  invested  with 
the  peculiarity  of  the  apostleship.  This  inference,  sufficiently 
clear  from  the  very  statement,  we  shall  now  proceed  t.o  ^ut 
beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt. 

We  turn,  then,  to  another  account  which  Paul  has  give»  of 
his  call  to  the  apostleship,  1  Cor.  ix.  1,  2j  "  Am  I  not  an  apos- 
tle ?  Am  I  not  free  ?  Have  I  not  seen  Je^us  Christ  our  Lord  ?" 
We  adduce  this  passage  as  proof,  that  to  have  seen  Jesus 
Christ  was  considered  as  an  indispensable  qualification  for  the 
apostleship.  So  Paul  regarded  it  ia  his  owa  case.  We  adduce 
it  also  for  another  purpose,  viz.,  to,  strengthen  our  main  position, 
that  the  Apostles  were  designated  to  their  office  specifically  as  wit- 
nesses to  the  character  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  If  this  was 
not  the  design,  we  ask,  Why  does  Paul  appeal  to  the  fact  that 
he  had  seen  the  Saviour,  as  proof  that  he  was  qualified  to  be  an 
apostle?  And  we  further  ask,  with  emphasis.  If  the  Apostles^ 
as  Episcopalians  pretend,  did,  in  virtue  of  their  office,  possess 
■*'  superiority  in  nvinisterial  powers  and  rights,"  why  did  not  Paul 
once  hint  at  the  fact  in  this  passage  ?  His  express  object  was  to 
Tindicate  his  cl^ini.  to  the  apostleship.  In  doing  this,  he  appeals 
to  that  which  we  maintain  to  have  constituted  the  peculiarity  of 
the  office,  his  being  "  witness"  to  the  Saviour.  In  this  instance 
"we  have  a  circumstgince  of  which  Paley  would  make  much  in 
an  argument,  if"  it  fell  in  with  the  design  of  the  "  Horae  Paulinae." 
We  claim  the  privilege  of  making  as  much  of  it  upon  the  ques- 
tion, whether  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office  was  "  swpe- 
riority  of  ministerial  powers  and.  rights," 

We  have  now  examined  all  the  passages,  of  Scripture  which 
state  the  design  of  the  apostleship.    And  we  have  shown,  if  we 
6* 


66  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

mistake  not,  that  the  ground  of  the  distinction  between  the 
"  apostles  and  elders,"  '•  the  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren," 
was  not  that  the  former  had  superiority  of"  ministerial  powers 
and  rights."  We  might  leave  the  argument  here;  for  if  the 
Episcopalians  cannot  make  out  this  point  to  entire  satisfaction, 
all  that  is  said  about  successors  in  the  apostolic  office,  and  about 
perpetuating  apostleship,  must  be  nugatory  and  vain.  But  we 
have  an  independent  topic  of  remark  here ;  and  one  which 
bears  on  the  subject,  therefore,  with  all  the  force  of  a  cumula- 
tive argument.  To  the  consideration  of  this,  we  are  led  by  the 
next  position  of  Dr.  Onderdonk.  This  is  stated  in  the  following 
words :  that  '*'  there  was  continued^  as  had  begun  in  the  apos- 
tles, an  order  of  ministers  superior  to  the  elders."  p.  16.  This 
he  attempts  to  prove,  on  the  ground  "  that  there  is  no  scriptural 
evidence  that  mere  elders  (presbyters)  ordained."  pp.  16-23. 
And  that  "  the  above  distinction  between  elders  and  a  grade 
superior  to  them,  in  regard  especially  to  the  power  of  ordaining, 
was  so  persevered  in  as  to  indicate  that  it  was  a  'permanent 
arrangement,  and  not  designed  to  be  but  temporary,  pp.  23-29. 
We  shall  reverse  the  order  of  this  argument. 

In  the  inquiry,  then,  whether  this  distinction  was  continued, 
or  persevered  in,  we  might  insist  on  what  has  been  already 
shown,  as  decisive.  If  the  original  distinction  was  what  we 
have  proved  it  to  be,  it  could  not  be  persevered  in,  without  (as 
in  the  case  of  Paul)  a  personal  direct  manifestation  of  the 
ascended  Saviour,  to  qualify  every  future  incumbent  for  the 
apostleship.  1  Cor,  ix.  1.  No  modern  "bishop,"  we  presume, 
will  lay  claim  to  this.  The  very  supposition  that  any  such 
revelation  was  necessary,  would  dethrone  every  prelate,  and 
prostrate  every  mitre  in  Christendom. 

But  we  have,  as  before  remarked,  an  independent  train  of 
arguments  on  this  point.  It  is  evident  that  the  whole  burden  of 
proof  here  lies  on  the  Episcopalian.  He  maintains  that  such  an 
original  distinction  existed,  and  that  it  was  perpetuated.  Both 
these  positions  we  deny.  The  first  we  have  shown  to  be  un- 
founded, and  have  thus  virtually  destroyed  the  other.  We  pro- 
ceed, however,  to  the  comparatively  needless  task  of  showing 
that  Dr.  Onderdonk's  second  position  is  equally  unfounded.  His 
evidence  we  shall  examine  as  we  find  it  scattered  throughout  the 
tract  before  us. 

The  first  argument  is,  that  "  some  are  named  apostles  in 
Scripture,  who  were  not  thus  appointed,  (i.  e.  by  the  Saviour 
himself,)  as  Matthias,  Barnabas,  and  probably  James,  the 
brother  of  our  Lord,  all  ordained  by  mere  human  ordainers. 
Silvanus  also,  and  Timothy,  are  called  "  apostles  ;"  and  besides 
Andronicus  and  Junia,  others  could  be  added  to  the  list.  p.  15. 

The  argument  here  is,  that  the  name  "  apostle"  is  given  to 
them,  and  that  they  held,  therefore,  the  peculiar  office  in  ques- 
tion. But  the  mere  circumstance  that  they  had  this  name^ 
would  not  of  itself  establish  this  point.    It  is  not  necJessary,  we 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  67 

presume,  to  apprize  our  readers,  that  the  word  apostle  means 
07ie  who  is  sent^  and  may  be  applied  to  any  person  employed  to 
deliver  a  message ;  and  in  a  general  sense,  to  any  minister  of 
religion,  or  to  any  one  sent,  to  proclaim  the  message  of  life. 
Thus  in  John  xiii.  16,  it  is  applied  to  any  messenger,  sustaining 
the  same  relation  to  one  who  sends  him  that  the  servant  does  to 
his  master.  "  The  servant  is  not  greater  than  his  lord,  [master] 
neither  he  that  is  sent,  a-i:6cTo\oi,  greater  than  he  that  sent  him." 
Thus  it  is  applied  (Philip,  ii.  25)  to  Epaphroditus  not  as  an 
apostle  in  the  specific  sense  of  the  term,  but  as  a  messenger,  sent 
by  the  Church  at  Philippi  to  supply  the  wants  of  Paul.  (Comp. 
Philip,  iv.  18.)  "Epaphroditus,  my  brother  and  companion  in 
labor,  but  yoar  messenger^'''  hnQv  bl  aziaroUv,  your  apostle.  Thus 
also  in  2  Cor.  viii.  23,  it  is  applied  to  the  "  brethren,"  ''  the  mes- 
sengers of  the  churches  ;"  "  our  brethren  are  the  messengers  of 
the  churcJies"  uir6aTo\oi  iKK^jjaidv.  Thcse  passages  show,  beyond 
a  question,  that  the  name  is  often  used  in  the  New  Testament 
in  its  generic  signification,  and,  consequently,  the  mere  fact  that 
it  is  applied  to  an  individual,  is  not  proof  that  he  was  an  apostle 
in  its  specific  sense, — the  only  sense  which  would  be  of  value 
in  the  argument  of  the  Episcopalian.  The  connexions,  the 
circumstances,  are  to  determine  its  meaning.  We  make  this 
remark,  in  accordance  with  the  judicious  observation  of  Dr. 
Onderdonk,  p.  13,  "A  little  reflection  and  practice  will  enable 
any  of  our  readers  to  look  ih  Scripture  for  the  several  sacred 
OFFICES  ^independently  of  the  names  there  or  elsewhere  given  to 
them.'' 

The  question  then  is,  whether  the  name  apostle  is  so  given  to 
the  persons  here  designated,  as  to  show  that  it  is  used  in  its 
strict  specific  sense. 

The  first  case  is  that  of  "  Matthias."  The  reason  why  the 
name  was  given  to  him  we  have  already  shown.  He  was  an 
apostle  in  the  strict,  proper  sense,  because  he  was  chosen  to  be 
a  "  witness"  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour.  Acts  i.  22. 

The  second  case  is  that  of  Barnabas.  He  is  once  called  an 
apostle.  (Acts  xiv.  14.)  That  he  was  not  an  apostle  in  the  strict, 
proper  sense,  Dr.  Onderdonk  has  himself  most  laboriously  and 
satisfactorily  proved.  In  his  argument  against  Presbyterian 
ordination,  (pp.  16,  17,)  he  has  taken  much  pains  to  show  that 
Barnabas  was  set  apart  (Acts  xiii.  1-3)  "  to  a  special  missionary 
work ;"  "  was  merely  set  apart  to  a  particular  field  of  duty ;" 
that  is,  was  sent  as  a  messenger  of  the  Church  to  perform  a  par- 
ticular piece  of  work.  It  i%  observable  that  before  this,  Barnabas 
is  called  merely  "a  prophet  and  teacher;"  (Acts  xiii.  1-11;) 
that  he  is  called  an  apostle  in  immediate  connexion  with  this 
designation,  and  nowhere  else.  Acts  xiv.  14.  How  Dr.  Onder- 
donk, after  having  shown  so  conclusively,  as  we  think,  that  the 
transaction  at  Antioch  was  not  a  Presbyterian  ordination ;  that 
it  was  a  mere  designation  to  a  particular  field  of  labor,  should 
persist  in  maintaining  that  Barnabas  was  an  apostle,  in  the  strict 


68  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

sense,  as  having  a  "  superiority  of  ministerial  rights  and  powers," 
we  profess  our  inability  to  conceive.  We  shall  thus  dismiss  the 
case  of  Matthias  and  Barnabas. 

The  next  case  is  "  'probably  James,  the  brother  of  our  Lord." 
The  use  of  the  word  probably,  here,  shows  a  wish  to  press  cases 
into  the  service,  which  we  regret  to  see  in  a  tract  making  strong 
pretensions  to  strict  demonstration:  (comp.  pp.  3,  11,  16,  23, 
«&c. :)  but  it  evinces  a  deficiency  of  strong,  palpable  instances, 
which  betrays  the  conscious  feebleness  of  the  argument.  "  James, 
the  Lord's  brother,"  is  once  mentioned  as  an  apostle:  Gal.  i.  19. 
But  it  could  not  have  escaped  the  recollection  of  Dr.  Onderdonk 
that  there  were  two  of  the  name  of  James  among  the  Apostles 
in  the  specific  sense  of  the  term  ;  viz.  James  the  brother  of  John, 
and  son  of  Zebedee,  and  James  the  son  of  Alpheus.  Matt.  x.  3 : 
Luke  vi,  15.  Nor  can  it  be  unknown  to  him,  that  the  word 
brother  was  used  by  the  Hebrews  to  denote  a  relative  more 
remote  than  that  which  is  designated  by  the  ordinary  use  of  the 
word  among  us ;  and  that  Alpheus  was  probably  a  connexion  of 
the  family  of  our  Lord.  What  proof,  then,  is  there,  that  he  was 
not  referred  to  in  the  passage  before  us?  As  this  ease  is 
alleged  to  have  only  a  probability  in  its  favor,  we  consider  it 
disposed  of. 

Sylvanus  and  Timothy  are  the  next  mentioned.  As  their 
claim  to  be  considered  apostles  resls  on  the  same  foundation,  so 
far  as  the  name  is  any  evidence,  we  shall  dispose  of  these  cases 
by  considering  that  of  Timothy  at  length  in  a  subsequent  part  of 
the  argument. 

The  remaining  cases  are  those  of  Andronicus  and  Junia.  The 
foundation  for  their  claim  to  be  enrolled  as  apostles,  is  the  fol- 
lowing mention  of  them  by  Paul:  Eom.  xvi.  7:  "Salute  Andro- 
nicus and  Junia,  my  kinsmen,  who  are  of  note  among-  the  Apos^ 
ileSf''^  SiTivis  iicriv  Man\ioi  iv  roTj  diroffr(jXo/f.  On  this  claim  wc  remark ; 
(1.)  Admitting  that  they  are  here  caZZerf  apostles,  the  name,  as  we 
have  proved,  does  not  imply  that  they  had  any  "  superiority  of 
ministerial  rights  and  powers."  They  might  have  been  distin- 
guished as  messengers,  or  laborers,  like  Epaphroditus.  (2.)  It 
is  clear  that  the  Apostle  did  not  mean  to  give  them  the  name  of 
apostles  at  all.  If  he  had  designed  it,  the  phraseology  would 
have  been  different.  Comp.  Rom.  i.  1 ;  1  Cor.  i.  1 ;  2  Cor.  i.  1 ; 
Philip,  i.  1.  (3.)  All  that  the  expression  fairly  implies,  is,  that 
they,  having  been  early  converted,  (Rom.  xvi.  7,)  and  being 
acquainted  with  the  Apostles  at  Jerusalem,  were  held  in  high 
esteem  by  them  ;  the  Apostles  regarded  them  with  confidence 
and  affection.    We  consider  this  case,  therefore,  as  disposed  of.* 

The  next  point  of  proof  in  the  tract  before  us,  "  that  the  dis- 

♦  Dr.  Onderdonfe  says  that  Calvin,  in  hSs  Institutes,  "  allows  AndronicHS  ani 
JFunia  to  have  been  apostles  ;"  but  he  ought  to  have  added  that  Calvin,  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  passage,  written  at  a  later  period,  denies  that  they  were  apostles  in 
the  specific  sense  of  the  term. 


TESTED    BY  SCRIPTURE.  by 

tinction  between  elders  and  a  grade  superior  to  them,  in  regard 
especially  to  the  power  of  ordaining,  was  so  persevered  in  as  to 
indicate  that  it  was  a  'permanent  arrangement,"  is  drawn  from 
the  charge  given  by  the  Apostle  Paul  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus. 
Acts  XX.  28-35.  The  point  of  this  evidence,  as  we  understand 
it,  is  this.  Paul  charges  the  elders  at  Ephesus  to  '*  take  heed  to 
themselves,"—"  to  take  heed  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  overseers, — to  feed  the  Church  of 
God, — to  watch  against  the  grievous  wolves  that  would  assail 
the  flock,"  «&c.  In  all  this,  we  are  told,  there  is  not  a  word 
respecting  the  power  of  ordaining,  nor  any  thing  which  shovi^s 
that  they  had  the  power  of  clerical  discipline.  "  No  power  is 
intimated  to  depose  from  office  one  of  their  own  number,  or  an 
unsound  minister  coming  among  them."  They  are  to  "  tend" 
or  "rule"  the  flock  as  shepherds j  "for  shepherds  do  not  .tend 
and  rule  shepherds."  pp.  23,  24. 

This  is  affirmed  to  be  the  sole  power  of  these  elders.  In  con- 
nexion with  this  we  are  asked  to  read  the  Epistles  to  Timothy, 
— the  power  there  given  "  personally  to  Timothy  at  Ephesus^^ 
(p.  23,)  or  as  it  is  elsewhere  expressed.  "  Compare  now  with 
this  sum  total  of  power  assigned  to  mere  elders,  or  presbyters, 
that  of  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  the  very  city  and  region  in  which 
those  addressed  by  Paul,  in  Acts  xx.,  resided  and  ministered." 
p.  25.  In  those  epistles  it  is  said  that  the  "right  of  governing 
the  clergy,  and  ordaining,  is  ascribed  to  him  personally ;"  and 
numerous  undisputed  passages  are  then  adduced,  to  show  that 
Timothy  is  addressed  as  having  this  power.  1  Tim.  i.  18 ;  iii. 
14,  15;  iv.  6;  i.  3;  v.  19-21,  &c.,  &c. 

Now  this  argument  proceeds  on  the  following  assumptions, 
viz.— 1.  That  Timothy  was  called  an  apostle  ;  was  invested  with 
the  same  powers  as  the  Apostles,  and  was  one  of  their  success- 
ors in  the  office.  2.  That  he  was,  at  the  time  when  Paul  gave 
his  charge  to  the  elders  at  Miletus,  bishop  of  Ephesus.  3.  That 
the  "  elders"  summoned  to  Miletus,  were  ministers  of  the  Gospel 
of  the  second  order,  or  as  they  are  now  termed,  usually,  priests^ 
in  contradistinction  from  bishops  and  deacons.  If  these  points 
are  not  made  out  from  the  New  Testament,  or  if  any  one  of  them 
fails,  this  argument  for  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  will 
be  of  no  value.  We  shall  take  them  up  and  dispose  of  them  in 
their  order. 

The  first  claim  is,  that  Timothy  is  called  an  "  apostle,"  and 
was,  therefore,  clothed  with  apostolic  powers.  This  claim  is 
advanced  on  p.  15.  "  Silvanus  also,  and  Timothy,  are  called 
'apostles,'"  and  the  claim  is  implied  in  the  whole  argument, 
and  is  essential  to  its  validity.  The  proof  on  which  this  claim 
is  made  to  rest,  is  contained  in  1  Thess.  i.  I,  compared  with 
1  Thess.  ii.  6.  Paul,  Silvanus,  and  Timothy,  are  joined  together 
in  the  commencement  of  the  epistle,  as  writing  it  to  the  Church  at 
Thessalonica ;  and  in  ch.  ii.  6,  the  following  expression  occurs, 
"Nor  of  man  sought  we  glory  —when  we  might  have  been  bur- 


70  REVIEW— EPISCOPACY 

densome  as  the  apostles  of  Christ."  This  is  the  sole  proof  of 
the  apostleship  of  Timothy, — of  which  so  much  is  made  in  the 
Episcopal  controversy,  and  which  is  usually  appealed  to  as  itself 
sufficient  to  settle  the  question. 

Now,  without  insisting  on  the  point  which  we  have  made  out, 
that  the  apostolic  office  was  conferred  not  to  impart  "  superi- 
ority of  ministerial  rights  and  powers,"  but  to  establish  every 
where  the  great  doctrine  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  that, 
consequently,  z/" Timothy  is  called  an  apostle,  it  is  only  in  the 
generic  sense  of  the  word,  to  which  we  have  adverted,  and  that 
Paul  might  also  on  this  occasion  speak  of  himself,  as  joined 
"With  Timothy  and  Silvanus,  as  a  messenger  of  the  churches; 
(comp.  Acts  xiii.  2  ;  xiv.  14  ;  Rom.  xvi.  25  ;  2  Cor.  viii.  23  ;)  not 
to  insist  on  this  position,  we  shall  dispose  of  this  claim  by  the 
following  considerations.  1.  The  passage  does  not  fairly  imply 
that  Timothy  was  even  called  an  apostle.  For  it  is  admitted  in 
the  tract,  (p.  15,)  that  "  it  is  not  unusual  for  St.  Paul  to  use  the 
plural  number  of  himself  only."  It  is  argued  indeed,  that  the 
words  "  apostles,"  and  "  our  own  souls,"  (v.  8,)  being  inappli- 
cable to  the  singular  use  of  the  plural  number,  hence  the  "  three 
whose  names  are  at  the  head  of  the  epistle,  are  here  spoken  of 
jointly."  But  if  Paul  used  the  plural  number  as  applicable  to 
himself,  would  it  not  be  natural  for  him  to  continue  its  use,  and 
to  employ  the  adjectives,  &c.,  connected  with  it  in  the  same 
number?  Besides,  there  is  conclusive  evidence  that  Paul  did 
7iot  intend  to  include  the  "three"  named  at  the  head  of  the 
epistle,  in  his  expression  in  ver.  6.  For  in  the  verses  immediately 
preceding,  mention  is  made  that  "we  had  suffered  before,  and- 
were  shamefully  treated,  as  ye  know,  at  Philippi,"  &c.  Now  it 
is  capable  of  demonstration,  that  Timothy  was  not  presertt  at 
that  time,  and  was  not  engaged  in  those  labors,  or  subjected  to 
those  sufferings  at  Philippi,  Acts  xvi.  12,  19;  xvii.  1-4.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  Paul  did  not  intend  here,  to  imply  that 
"  the  three  named  at  the  head  of  the  epistle"  were  apostles ;  and 
that  he  either  intended  to  speak  of  himself  alone,  in  ver.  6,  or 
what  is  more  probable,  that  he  spoke  of  himself  as  one  of  the 
apostles,  and  of  what  the  apostles  might  do  in  virtue  of  their 
office ;  that  is,  that  they  might  be  burdensome,  or  might  "  use 
authority,"  as  in  the  margin. 

Our  next  proof  that  Timothy  was  not  an  apostle,  is,  that  he  is 
expressly  distinguished  from  Paul,  as  an  apostle;  that  is,  in 
the  same  verse,  Paul  is  careful  to  speak  of  himself  as  an  apos- 
tle, and  of  Timothy  as  not  an  apostle.  Thus,  2  Cor.  i.  1,  "  Paul 
an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  Timothy  our  brother^  Again, 
Col.  i.  1,  "  Paul  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  Timothy  our 
hrothery  Now,  our  argument  is  this,  that  if  Paul  regarded 
Timothy  as  an  apostle,  it  is  remarkable  that  he  should  be  so 
careful  to  make  this  distinction,  when  his  own  nam,e  is  men- 
tioned as  an  apostle.  Why  did  he  not  also  make  the  same 
honorable  mention  of  Timothy  ?— Will  some  of  our  Episcopal 


TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  71 

friends  be  kind  enough  to  state  why  this  distinction  is  made? — 
The  distinction  is  the  more  remarkable,  from  the  next  con- 
sideration to  be  adduced,  which  is,  that  Paul  is  so  cautious 
on  this  point,  so  resolved  not  to  call  Timothy  an  apostle,  that 
when  their  names  are  joined  together,  as  in  any  sense  claiming 
the  same  appellation,  it  is  not  as  apostles^  but  as  servants.  Philip. 
i.  1 :  "  Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ.'* 
See  also,  1  Thess.  i.  1 ;  2  Thess.  i.  1.  These  considerations  put 
it  beyond  debate  in  our  view,  that  Timothy  is  not  called  an 
apostle  in  the  New  Testament.  This,  it  will  be  perceived,  is  an 
important  advance  in  our  argument. 

The  second  claim  for  Timothy  is,  that  he  was  bishop  of 
Ephesus.  This  claim  is  essential  to  the  argument  of  Dr.  Onder- 
donk,  and  is  every  where  implied  in  what  he  says  of  Timothy, 
See  pp.  23,  25.  Proof  is  not  indeed  attempted ;  but  it  is 
assumed  as  a  conceded  point.  Now  this  point  should  have  been 
made  out,  for  it  is  not  one  of  those  which  we  are  disposed,  by 
any  means,  to  concede.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  too,  that  it  is  a 
point  which  is  to  be  made  out  from  the  New  Testament,  for  our 
inquiry  is,  whether  Episcopacy  can  be  defended  "  by  Scripture." 
Let  us  see  how  this  matter  stands. 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  remark,  that  the  subscription  at  the 
close  of  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  "  ordained  first  bishop 
of  the  church  of  the  Ephesians,"  &c.,  is  admitted  on  all  hands 
not  to  be  inspired,  and,  therefore,  is  of  no  authority  in  this  argu- 
ment. Assuredly  Paul  would  not  close  a  letter  in  this  way,  by 
seriously  informing  Timothy  that  he  wrote  a  second  epistle  to 
him,  &c.,  and  by  appending  this  to  the  letter.  By  whom  these 
subscriptions  to  the  epistles  were  added,  is  unknown.  Some  of 
them  are  manifestly  false ;  and  none  of  them,  though  true,  are 
of  any  authority.  The  subscription  here  belongs,  we  believe,  to 
the  former  class. 

Now,  how  does  the  case  stand  in  the  New  Testament,  with 
respect  to  Timothy  ?  What  testimony  does  it  afford,  as  to  his 
being  "bishop  of  Ephesus?"  A  few  observations  will  save 
further  debate,  we  trust,  on  this  subject. 

1.  It  is  admitted  that  he  was  not  at  Ephesus,  at  the  time  when 
Paul  made  his  address  to  the  elders  at  Miletus.  Thus,  p.  25, 
"  Ephesus  was  without  a  bishop  when  Paul  addressed  the  elders, 
Timothy  not  having  been  placed  over  that  church  till  some  time 
afterward."  Here,  then,  was  one  diocese,  or  one  collection  of 
churches,  which  is  admitted  to  have  been  constituted  without  a 
bishop.  The  presumption  is,  that  all  others  were  organized  in 
the  same  way. 

2.  The  charge  which  Paul  gives  to  the  elders  proves  that 
Timothy  was  not  there ;  and  proves  further,  that  they,  at  that 
time,  had  no  bishops,  and  that  they  previously  had  none.  They 
are  charged  to  take  heed  to  themselves,  and  to  all  the  flock,  "■  to 
feed"  or  "  to  rule"  the  flock,  &c.    But  not  one  word  is  to  be 


72  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY  ' 

found  of  their  having  then  any  prelatical  bishop ;  not  one  word 
of  Timothy  as  their  Episcopal  leader.  Not  an  exhortation  is 
given  to  be  subject  to  any  prelate;  not  an  intimation  that  they 
would  ever  be  called  on  to  recognise  any  such  bishops.  Not 
one  word  of  lamentation  or  condolence  is  expressed,  that  they 
were  not  fully  supplied  with  all  proper  Episcopal  authority. 
All  of  which  is  inexplicable,  on  the  supposition  that  they  were 
then  destitute,  and  that  they  would  be  supplied  with  an  officer 
"superior  in  ministerial  rights  and  powers."  Nay,  they  are 
themselves  expressly  called  bishops,  without  the  slightest  inti- 
mation that  there  were  any  higher^  or  more  honorable  prelates 
than  themselves.  Acts  xx.  28  :  "  Take  heed,  therefore,  to  your- 
selves, and  to  all  the  flock  over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
made  you  bishops  "  ImaKdrovi. 

3.  It  is  admitted  by  us  that  Timothy  subsequently  was  at 
Ephesus,  and  that  he  was  left  there  for  an  important  purpose, 
by  the  Apostle  Paul.  This  was  when  Paul  went  to  Macedonia. 
1  Tim.  i  3.  This  is  the  only  intimation  that  we  know  of,  in 
the  New  Testament,  that  Timothy  was  ever  at  Ephesus  at  all. 
It  is  important,  then,  to  ascertain  whether  he  was  left  there  as  a 
'permanent  bishop  7  Now  in  settling  this,  we  remark,  it  is  no- 
where intimated,  in  the  New  Testament,  that  he  was  such  a 
bishop.  The  passage  before  us,  1  Tim.  i.  3,  states,  that  when 
they  were  travelling  together,  Paul  left  him  there,  while  he 
himself  should  go  over  into  Macedonia.  The  object  for  which 
he  left  him  is  explicitly  stated,  and  that  object  was  not  that  he 
should  be  a  permanent  bishop.  It  is  said  to  be  "  to  charge  some 
that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine,  neither  to  give  heed  to  endless 
genealogies,"  &c. ;  that  is,  manifestly,  to  perform  a  temporary 
office  of  regulating  certain  disorders  in  the  Church  ;  of  silencing 
certain  false  teachers  of  Jewish  extraction  ;  of  producing,  in 
one  word,  Vv'hat  the  personal  influence  of  the  Apostle  himself 
might  have  produced,  but  for  a  sudden  and  unexpected  call  to 
Macedonia.  Acts  xx.  1.  Hence  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the 
Apostle  designed  this  as  a  temporary  appointment  for  a  specific 
object,  and  that  object  was  not  to  be  prelate  of  the  Church. 
Thus  he  says,  1  Tim.  iv.  13,  "  Till  I  come,  give  attention  to 
reading,"  &c. :  implying  that  his  temporary  office  was  then  to 
cease.  Thus,  too,  referring  to  the  same  purpose  to  return  and 
join  Timothy,  he  says,  1  Tim.  iii.  14, 15 :  "  These  things  I  write 
unto  thee,  hoping  to  come  unto  thee  shortly ;  but  if  I  tarry 
long,  that  thou  mightest  know  how  thou  oughtest  to  behave 
thyself  in  the  house  of  God,"  &c.  ;  implying  that  these  direc- 
tions were  particularly  to  serve  him  during  his  appointment  to 
the  specific  business  of  regulating  some  disordered  aflffiirs  pro- 
duced by  false  teachers,  and  which  might  require  the  discipline  of 
even  some  of  the  bishops  and  deacons  of  the  Church,  ch.  v.  vi. 
These  directions,  involving  general  principles  indeed,  and  of 
value  to  regulate  his  whole  life,  yet  had,  nevertheless,  a  mani- 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  73 

fest  special  reference  to  the  cases  which  might  occur  there,  in 
putting  a  period  to  the  promulgation  of  erroneous  doctrines  by 
Jewish  teachers.  1  Tim.  i.  3. 

4.  It  has  been  shovvn  by  the  late  Dr.  Wilson,  of  Philadelphia, 
from  the  New  Testament  itself,  that  Timothy  was  not  the  bishop 
of  the  church  at  Ephesus.  To  this  argument,  which  is  too  long 
to  be  inserted  here,  and  which  cannot  be  abridged,  we  can  only 
refer.* 

[In  the  second  edition  of  his  review,  Mr.  Barnes  has  inserted 
at  large  the  argument  here  referred  to.  We  extract  it,  therefore, 
from  the  work  of  Dr.  Wilson.  A  different  view  of  the  subject 
will  be  found  in  some  of  our  subsequent  pagesj 

"  That  Paul  and  Timothy  were  together  at  Ephesus,  and  that 
Paul  left  him  there  when  he  went  on  some  occasion  into  Mace- 
donia, may  be  plainly  inferred  from  1  Tim.  i.  3.  'I  besought 
thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I  went  into  Macedonia.' 
The  time  to  which  there  is  here  an  allusion  is  the  more  easily 
ascertained,  because  the  Apostle  is  recorded  to  have  been  twice 
only  at  Ephesus;  on  the  first  occasion,  he  merely  called  on  his 
voyage  from  Corinth  and  Jerusalem;  on  the  second,  he  went 
from  Ephesus  into  Macedonia,  according  to  the  words  of  the 
epistle. 

"  That  Timothy  was  left  at  Ephesus,  when  Paul,  expelled  by 
the  riot,  went  into  Macedonia,  obtains  satisfactory  proofs.  Before 
he  wrote  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  Paul  sent  Timothy 
and  Erastus  into  Macedonia,  but  he  himself  remained  in  Asia 
for  some  time.  Acts  xix.  22  ;  1  Cor.  v.  17 ;  xvi.  10.  In  the  first 
letter  to  the  Corinthians,  which  he  wrote  at  Ephesus,  and  sent 
by  Titus  to  Corinth,  he  mentioned  his  purpose  of  coming  to 
them,  but  not  immediately ;  of  which  Luke  also  informs  us. 
Acts  xix.  21,  and  desired  them,  if  Timothy  came  to  them,  1  Cor. 
xvi.  10,  11,  to  conduct  him  forth  in  peace,  that  he  might  come 
to  Paul,  then  at  Ephesus,  for  he  looked  for  him,  with  the 
brethren.  When  he  closed  that  letter  he  was  expecting  Timo- 
thy's return,  which  that  letter  might  also  have  hastened.  Paul 
remained  at  Ephesus,  on  this  visit,  the  space  of  three  years. 
Acts  XX.  31.  There  is,  therefore,  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he 
was  disappointed  in  his  expectation  of  the  arrival  of  Timothy, 
from  Corinth,  at  Ephesus,  before  he  went  into  Macedonia;  and 
if  so,  he  might  have  left  him  there,  as  he  at  some  period  cer- 
tainly did.  1  Tim.  i.  3.  He  had  intended  to  go  by  Corinth  into 
Macedonia,  2  Cor.  i.  15,  16,  but  changed  his  mind  and  went  by 
Troas  thither.  1  Cor.  xvi.  5  ;  2  Cor.  ii.  12,  13.  Whilst  in  Mace- 
donia, he  wrote  his  first  letter  to  Timothy,  for  he  proposed  to 
him  to  remain  at  Ephesus  until  he  should  call  there  on  his  way 
to  Jerusalem.  1  Tim.  i.  3 ;  iii.  14,  15.    The  words  imply  that 


♦  The  Priniitive  Government  of  the  Christian  Churches,  pp.  251-262. 

7 


74  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

Paul  might  tarry  some  time  ;  and  that  he  did  so  before  he  went 
into  Greece,  is  fairly  implied  in  the  expression,  '  And  when  he 
had  gone  over  those  parts,  and  given  them  much  exhortation, 
he  came  into  Grfeece.'  Acts  xx,  2.  Timothy  was  advised, 
solicited,  or  besought  (va^eKoliriaa)  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  which 
gave  him  liberty  to  exercise  his  discretion,  but  several  motives 
must  have  influenced  him  to  go  to  the  Apostle.  The  enemies 
at  Ephesus  were  numerous  and  violent;  Timothy  was  young j 
his  affection  for  Paul  ardent;  the  request  of  Paul  that  he  should 
abide  at  Ephesus  was  not  peremptory ;  and  Paul  told  him  he 
expected  to  tarry  a  long  time.  Also  Timothy  had  been,  from 
their  commencement,  familiarly  acquainted  with  the  churches 
in  Macedonia  and  Greece.  Accordingly  we  find  Timothy  in 
Macedonia  when  Paul  wrote  his  second  epistle  to  the  Corinth- 
ians. 1  Cor.  i.  1.  The  Apostle  went  from  Macedonia  into 
Greece,  Acts  xx.  2,  as  he  had  promised  in  that  letter,  chapter 
xiii.  1,  and  abode  there  three  months.  Acts  Xx.  3.  Timothy  was 
"with  him  at  Corinth,  for  he  sends  his  salutations  to  the  Romans, 
Rom.  xvi.  21,  in  that  famous  epistle  written  from  thence.* 

"  That  there  was  sufficient  time  for  Paul  to  have  written  from 
Macedonia  to  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  and  for  Timothy  to  have 
spent  some  months  at  Ephesus,  before  he  came  to  Paul  in 
Macedonia,  appears  from  the  time  he  waited  for  Titus  at  Troas, 
2  Cor.  ii.  12,  13;  his  determination  not  to  go  to  Corinth  till  he 
could  do  it  without  heaviness,  2  Cor.  ii.  1 ;  his  distress  in  Mace- 
donia before  Titus  arrived,  2  Cor.  vii.  5;  and  his  success  in 
raising  charities  for  the  saints  in  Judea,  2  Cor.  viii.  2,  3;  ix.  4. 
He  had  intended  to  tarry  at  Ephesus  until  Pentecost,  1  Cor. 
xvi.  8,  but  went  sooner.  Acts  xx.  1.  He  passed  on  to  Jerusalem  at 
another  Pentecost,  Acts  xx.  16  ;  all  which  time  he  was  in  Mace- 
donia, except  three  months.  Acts  xx.  3. 

"  That  Paul  expected  to  spend  so  much  time  in  Macedonia 
and  Greece,  may  be  collected  from  his  intimation,  1  Cor.  xvi.  6, 
that  he  might  spend  the  winter  with  the  Corinthian  church. 
The  Apostle's  purpose  of  sailing  from  Corinth,  was  disap- 
pointed by  the  insidiousness  of  his  own  countrymen  ;  he  there- 
fore went  up  into  Macedonia  again,  that  he  might  pass  over  to 
Troas  with  his  companions.  Timothy  was  among  those  who 
crossed  first.  Acts  xx.  3,  5.  Paul's  disappointment  in  sailing 
from  Corinth,  and  his  wish  to  reach  Jerusalem  by  Pentecost, 
prevented  the  call  he  intended  at  Ephesus,  1  Tim.  iii.  14,  15,  but 
he  landed  at  Miletus,  and  sent  for  the  elders  of  the  church  at 
Ephesus. 

"  The  directions  of  the  Apostle  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  first 
epistle  to  Timothy,  fairly  imply  that  he  had  left  the  church  at 
Ephesus,  according  to  his  usual  practice,  without  ofiicers,  for  he 
gives  this  evangelist,  not  a  new  commission,  he  already  had 

*  Compare  Acta  xviii.  2,  with  Rom.  ivi.  3.  Vide  Acts  19,  xviii.  26;  1  Cor 
xvi.  19. 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  75 

power  to  ordain,  but  instructions  as  to  the  choice  of  bishops, 
that  is,  presbyters  and  deacons.  These  had  been  contiplied  with 
before  he  landed  at  Miletus.  Acts  xx.  17.  This  record  of  the 
existence  of  elders  at  Ephesus,  compared  with  the  directions 
given  to  Timothy,  not  only  renders  it  probable  that  Timothy 
had  ordained  them,  but  fortifies  tlie  presumption  that  the  first 
epistle  to  Timothy  was  written  in  Macedonia,  before  this  visit 
to  Jerusalem,  and  consequently  before  his  imprisonment. 

"The  language,  '  I  going  (jroptvontvoi)  into  Macedonia,  besought 
thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,'  did  not  form  a  permanent  con- 
nexion between  Timothy  and  Ephesus.  At  the  very  greatest 
extent,  the  instructions  given  in  this  letter  were  of  a  continuance 
only  till  Paul  should  come  to  him,  (tuj  ep^t^'fai.)  1  Tim.  iv.  13; 
iii.  14.  But  it  is  certain  that  Timothy  did  not  remain  at  Eph&- 
sus  till  Paul  passed  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem. 

"  The  second  epistle  to  Timothy  will  prove  itself  written  by 
Paul  when  a  prisoner  at  Rome ;  and  at  least  establishes  the 
absence  of  the  evangelist  from  his  spiritual  father  at  the  time  it 
was  written.  But  he  was  at  Rome  in  the  time  of  the  first 
imprisonment,  as  has  been  proved  by  his  liavmg  been  joined 
with  Paul  in  the  letters  to  the  Colossians,  PhiUppians  and  Phi- 
lemon. Demas  and  Mark  were  also  there  m  the  first  imprison- 
ment. Col.  iv.  10.  14,  but  absent  at  the  writing  of  the  second  to 
Timothy.  2  Tim',  iv.  10,  11. 

"  It  is  therefore  an  error  to  suppose  it  to  have  been  written 
before  the  epistles  to  the  Colossians,  Philippians,  and  Philemon, 
during  the  first  imprisonment.  Also  in  2  Tim.  iv.  20,  Paul  tells 
him  Erastus  abode  at  Corinth,  but  this  needed  not  to  have  been 
told  to  Timothy,  if  Paul  meant  that  Erastus  abode  at  Corinth 
when  he  went  to  Jerusalem,  and  so  to  Rome,  for  Timothy  was 
then  with  him,  and  must  have  known  the  circumstance  had  it 
been  so.  In  like  manner  he  says,  ibid,  '  Trophimns  have  I  left 
at  Miletum,  sick.'  But  Trophimus  was  not  left  at  any  place  on 
the  voyage  to  Jerusalem,  for  he  was  there,  and  the  occasion  of 
the  jealousies  of  the  Jews.  Acts  xxi.  29. 

"  These  two  facts,  compared  with  this,  which  appears  in  the 
epistle,  that  it  was  written  by  Paul,  a  prisoner  at  Rome,  afford 
suflicient  certainty  that  there  was  a  second  imprisonment  when 
this  letter  was  written. 

"  But  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  Timothy  was  at  Ephesus 
when  the  second  epistle  was  written.  This  ought  not  to  be 
assumed,  but  shown.  If  Timothy  was  then  at  Ephesus,  why 
should  he  have  been  told,  'I  have  sent  Tychicus  to  Ephesus?' 
2  Tim.  iv.  12.  He  must  have  arrived  at  that  place  before  the 
letter,  and  the  fact  could  have  been  then  known.  Also  Tychi- 
cus needed  no  introduction  to  Timothy.  Had  Timothy  been  at 
Ephesus,  Paul  would  not  have  sent  him  to  Troas  for  articles  he 
had  left  there.  It  appears  more  probable  that  Timothy  was,  at 
the  time  the  epistle  was  sent  to  him,  at  Troas,  or  in  the  neigh^ 


76  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

borhood  of  that  place.  The  salutations  will  not  establish  the 
destination  of  the  epistle.  Onesiphorus  resided  in  Asia,  but  the 
particular  place  of  his  abode  is  not  known.  He  helped  Paul 
both  at  Ephesus  and  Rome.  Also  Aquila,  who  had  resided  at 
Rome,  at  Corinth,  at  Ephesus,  and  again  at  Rome,  was  a  native 
of  Pontus,  on  the  margin  of  the  Euxine.  Tropliimus,  whom 
Paul  had  left  at  Miletum,  was  an  Ephesian.  Acts  xxi.  29.  Mile- 
tus was  near  Ephesus,  and  Timothy  would  have  known  the 
facts,  unless  Miletum  in  Crete  was  the  place. 

"  If  Timothy  was  not  at  Ephesus  when  the  second  letter  was 
written  to  him,  there  is  no  evidence  of  his  being  in  that  city 
after  Paul's  first  imprisonment.  But  if  he  had  been  at  Ephesus 
he  must  have  then  left  it,  the  letter  calling  him  to  Rome,  and  the 
sacred  records  speak  not  of  his  return  to  that  city.  The  second 
epistle  assigns  to  Timothy  no  other  duties  than  those  proper  to 
his  general  office  of  evangelist ;  and  bears  no  relation  to  a  par- 
ticular oversight  of  any  church  or  churches. 

"  Some  writers  suppose  that  Paul,  when  he  landed  at  Miletus, 
on  a  subsequent  voyage  to  Jerusalem,  left  Timothy  with  the 
elders  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  '  to  govern  them  in  his 
absence.'  But  nothing  of  the  kind  was  spoken  on  the  occasion ; 
and  instead  of  a  temporary  absence,  Paul  assured  the  elders 
they  should  '  see  his  face  no  more.'  In  1  Tim.  i.  3,  it  is  not  said, 
*  when  I  went  to  Jerusalem,'  but  expressly,  '  I  besought  thee  to 
abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I  loetit  into  Macedonia.^  Also  it 
has  been  asserted,  that  the  Apostle  having  placed  Timothy  at 
Ephesus  prior  to  his  first  imprisonment,  '  wrote  both  his  epistles 
to  Timothy  while  a  prisoner  at  Rome.'  But  Timothy  was 
with  Paul  at  Rome  during  a  part  of  the  first  imprisonment,  for 
he  is  joined  in  the  epistles  to  the  Philippians,  Colossians,  and 
Philemon.  Salutations  also  might  have  been  expected  in  the 
first  epistle  to  Timothy,  had  it  been  written  from  Rome,  as  in 
those  to  the  Philippians,  Colossians,  Philemon  and  the  Hebrews, 
He  was  indeed  absent  from  Rome  during  a  part  of  the  time 
of  the  first  imprisonment,  but  Paul  expected  his  return,  Heb. 
xiii.  23,  and  so  far  was  he  from  hoping  to  come  unto  Timothy 
shortly,  as  expressed  in  1  Tim.  iii.  14,  he  promises,  if  Timothy 
come  shortly  lo  Rome,  with  him  to  visit  the  Hebrews.  Also  it 
seems  strange,  if  Timothy  had  been  at  Ephesus  when  the 
epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was  sent  by  Tychieus,  Eph.  vi.  21, 
that  no  notice  whatever  should  have  been  taken  of  the  beloved 
youth, 

"Another  hypothesis  is,  that  Paul,  when  the  Jews  deterred 
him  from  sailing  from  Corinth,  and  he  determined  to  go  through 
Macedonia  to  Jerusalem,  besought  Timothy  to  abide  still  at 
Ephesus ;  to  which,  when  Timothy  agreed,  he  went  forward 
to  Troas,  with  Aristarchus  and  the  rest;  and  whilst  waiting 
there  for  Paul,  Timothy  received  the  first  epistle  from  the  Apos- 
tle, written  in  Macedonia.    But  this  is  a  departure  from  the 


TESTED  BY  SCRIPTURE.  77 

correct  meaning  of  the  passage,  which  is,  that  Paul  besought 
Timothy  irpoafienai,  to  coutinue  or  remain  at  the  place  where 
Timothy  was  at  the  time  he  was  thus  entreated.  Those  who 
■went  before  with  Timothy  to  Troas,  are  represented  to  have 
accompanied  Paul  into  Asia.  Acts  xx.  4,  5.  This  circumstance 
renders  it  an  improbable  supposition,  that  Paul  should  write  so 
long  and  important  a  letter  to  his  fellow-traveller,  whom  he 
must  overtake  in  a  few  days,  and  wholly  unaccountable,  that  he 
should  say  in  the  letter,  1  Tim.  iii.  14,  15,  'These  things  write 
I  unto  you,  hoping  to  come  unto  thee  shortly;  but  if  I  tarry 
long,'  &c.  That  Paul  should  have  thus  purposed  to  come  to 
Timothy  unto  Ephesus,  but  really  at  Troas,^  and  in  a  few  weeks 
afterward,  without  any  apparent  cause  for  a  change  of  views, 
should  have  said  at  Miletus  to  the  elders  of  the  church  of  Ephe- 
sus, '  I  know  that  ye  all  shall  see  my  face  no  more,'  Acts  xx.  25, 
exhibits  a  fluctuation  approximating  versatility.  If  Timothy 
was  on  this  occasion  left  with  the  officers  of  the  church  at 
Ephesus,  and  especially,  if  he  was  to  be  thenceforth  their  dio- 
cesan bishop,  it  is  strange  that  not  a  word  of  either  of  those 
circumstances  should  have  been  mentioned  lo  those  elders.  But 
so  far  was  the  Apostle  from  mentioning  their  subordination  unto, 
or  support  of  the  authority  of  young  Timothy,  that  he  enjoins 
them,—'  Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  tnaKoizovg  bishops,  to  feed 
the  Church  of  God,^  &c.  But  as  not  a  word  is  said  of  leaving 
Timothy  at  Miletus,  so  it  is  improbable  that  he  should  have 
parted  from  Paul  there,  because  he  appears  to  have  been 
of  the  company  of  the  Apostle  when  he  arrived  at  Rome, 
where  he  is  joined  with  him  in  the  letters  which  have  been 
mentioned. 

"  Others  allege  that  Paul  visited  Ephesus  after  his  first  impri- 
sonment, left  Timothy  there,  went  into  Macedonia,  and  from 
thence  wrote  to  him  his  first  letter.  They  build  upon  the  cir- 
cumstances, that  whilst  at  Rome  he  had  written  to  Philemon 
to  prepare  him  lodgings  at  Colosse;  and  that  he  had  told  the 
Philippians,  by  letter,  he  trusted  he  should  shortly  come  to 
them. 

''  This  opinion  is  much  more  respectable  than  either  of  the 
former  ;  and  although  several  of  the  fathers  have  positively 
asserted,  what  is  incompatible  with  it,  that  Paul  went  iato 
Spain  after  his  first  imprisonment,  according  to  his  purpose 
expressed,  Rom.  xv.  28,  yet,  however  credible  these  holy  men 
were,  their  conjectures  deserve  often  but  little  regard.  That 
Paul  was  atPhilippi  after  his  imprisonment  is  probable,  because 
he  left  Erastus  at  Corinth.  3  Tim.  iv.  20.  Also  he  may  have 
been  at  Colosse,  if  he  left  Trophimus  at  Miletus  j  but  the  place 
was  Miletum.  Ibid.  He  entertained  a  purpose  subsequent  to 
those,  of  visiting  Judea  with  Timothy.  Heb.  xiii.  23.  This  may 
have  been  first  accomplished,  and  Timothy  left  in  the  neighbor- 
7* 


78  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

hood  of  TroaSj  where  he  remained  till  the  second  epistle  was 
sent  to  him.  But  if  these  purposes  were  effectuated,  which  is 
matter  of  uncertainty,  there  is  not  a  word  to  prove  even  an 
intention  to  visit  Ephesus,  The  letter  to  the  Ephesians  neither 
mentions  Timothy,  nor  any  coming  of  Paul,  But  Tychicus,  a 
faithful  minister  of  the  Lord,  and  companion  of  the  Apostle,  was 
named  as  sent  to  them.  Eph.  vi.  21.  To  the  Ephesians  Paul 
had  said,  that  he  knew  they  should  '  see  his  face  no  more,'  and 
it  is  nowhere  shown  that  they  did.  The  .supposition  that 
nevertheless  Paul  afterward  went  to  Ephesus  with  Timothy, 
left  him  there,  with  the  request  to  tarry  till  he  should  return  to 
him,  and  then  went  into  Macedonia,  and  wrote  his  first  epistle 
to  Timothy,  is  entirely  gratuitous,  and  without  the  least  reason 
appearing  in  any  exigencies  of  the  Ephesian  church,  which  had 
had  three  years  of  Paul's  labors,  and  had  been  afterward  long 
blessed  with  the  regular  administration  of  the  ordinances  by 
pastors  of  their  own,  besides  help  from  Tychicus,  and  perhaps 
others. 

"  If  Paul  constituted  Timothy  bishop  of  Ephesus,  it  is  an 
affirmative,  and  ought  to  be  proved.  But  Paul  tells  the  presby^ 
ters  of  Ephesus,  at  Miletus,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them 
bishops  {eriaKoirovs)  of  that  church.  Those  elders  had  previously 
Teceived  the  powers  which  were  necessary  to  ordaining  others ; 
on  Timothy  a  similar  presbytery  laid  their  hands  at  his  ordina- 
tion. If  this  circumstance  will  not  show  that  a  presbytery 
could  have  ordained  an  evangelist,  an  apostle  not  being  present, 
because  evangelists  were  extraordinary  officers  of  a  higher 
grade  ;  yet  it  must  prove  that  a  presbytery  have  some  power  to 
ordain.  They  were  the  highest  fixed  officers  in  a  church,  and 
the  power  of  ordination  was  necessary  to  their  succession. 
They  could  not  have  been  appointed  coadjutors  to  Timothy/, 
in  the  ordination  of  themselves.  And  it  does  not  appear 
they  were  ordained  before  the  riot,  when  he  was  left  at  Ephe- 
sus. If  thus,  there  were  no  officers  in  that  church  when  Paul 
left  it,  the  direction  to  Timothy,  who  was  an  evangelist',  to 
ordain  bishops,  that  is,  elders  in  Ephesus,  was  to  do  no  more 
than  his  duty ;  which,  when  accomplished  in  any  church,  gave 
such  bishops  or  elders  power  to  continue  the  succession.  If  the 
presbyters  of  particular  churches  had  not  the  power  of  ordina- 
tiop,  there  has  been  no  succession  in  the  Church  of  Christ 
since  the  deaths  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists ;  for  their  offices 
expired  with  them,  and  there  were  no  officers  of  a  higher  order. 
The  office  of  Timothy  was  given  to  him  prior  to  his  visiting 
Ephesus.  The  duty  assigned  him  was  afterward  declared  to 
be  the  work  of  an  evangelist.  2  Tim.  iv.  5.  His  appointment 
to  Ephesus  was  temporary,  being  limited,  at  the  furthest,  to  the 
time  when  Paul  should  come  to  him ;  but  an  earlier  period  of 
its  termination  was  evidently  left  to  his  discretion,  which  he 
exercised  by  coming  to  Paul  into  Macedonia.    Thus  there  was 


TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  79 

a  disruption  of  the  connexion,  if  any  had  been  fixed,  but  none 
such  was  intended ;  the  epistle  was  neither  a  commission, 
nor  an  ordination,  but  a  mere  letter  of  instructioUy  directing 
him  in  the  discharge  of  his  high  and  important  oflEice  of 
evangelist. 

"  If  Timothy  returned  to  Ephesus  from  Rome,  which  is  not 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  and  died  there,  it  will  not  establish 
that  lie  ever  exercised,  or  had  any  other  office  than  that  of  an 
evangelist." 

5.  The  claim  that  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus,  is  one  that 
must  be  made  out  by  Episcopalians  from  the  New  Testament. 
But  this  claim  has  not  been  made  out,  nor  can  it  ever  be. 

6.  The  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  shows  further,  that  at  the 
time  of  writing  that,  there  was  no  such  bishop  at  Ephesus. 
Though  the  Apostle  herein  gives  the  church  various  instruc- 
tions about  the  relations  which  existed,  there  is  not  the  slightest 
hint  that  Timothy  was  there ;  nor  is  there  the  least  intimation 
that  any  such  officer  ever  had  been,  or  ever  would  be  set  over 
them. 

Now,  if  it  cannot  be  made  out  that  Timothy  was  bishop  of 
Ephesus;  if  the  point  is  not  established  beyond  a  doubt,  then  in 
reading  Paul's  charge  to  the  elders  at  Miletus,  we  are  to  regard 
them  as  intrusted  with  the  care  of  the  church  at  Ephesus.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  our  argument  to  inquire  wiiether  they  were 
ruling  elders,  or  presbyters,  ordained  to  preach  as  well  as  to 
rule.  All  that  is  incumbent  on  us,  is  to  show  that  the  New 
Testament  does  not  warrant  the  assumption  that  they  were 
subject  to  a  diocesan  bishop.  We  affirm,  therefore,  simply,  that 
Paul  addressed  them  as  intrusted  with  the  spiritual  instruction 
and  government  of  the  church  of  Ephesus,  without  any  refer- 
ence whatever  to  any  person,  either  then  or  afterward  placed 
over  them,  as  superior  in  ministerial  rights  and  powers.  And 
this  point  is  conclusively  established  by  two  additional  consider- 
ations; first,  that  they  are  expressly  called  bishops,  ImffK&vovi, 
themselves,  a  most  remarkable  appellation  if  the  Apostle  meant 
to  have  them  understand  that  they  were  to  be  under  the 
administration  of  another  bishop  of  superior  ministerial  powers 
and  rights ;  and  secondly,  that  they  are  expressly  intrusted 
with  the  whole  spiritual  charge  of  the  church,  voifiaivciv  rfiv 
bcic\ri(yiav  kt\.  But  everything  in  this  case  is  fully  met  by  the 
supposition  that  they  were  invested  with  the  simple  power  of 
ruling.  Dr.  Onderdonk  himself  admits  that  the  word  translated 
"  feed,"  Koinaivtiv,  may  be  rendered  to  "  rule."  p.  37.  And  if  this 
point  be  conceded,  the  idea  that  they  were  elders,  in  the  Pres- 
byterian sense,  is  all  that  can  be  proved  from  the  passage.  It  is 
essential  to  the  argument  of  Episcopalians,  that  they  should  be 
able  to  make  out  that  these  elders  not  only  ruled,  but  also 
preached  the  Gospel,  and  performed  the  other  functions  of  their 
*'  second  order"  of  clergy. 


80  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

Let  us  now  gather  the  results  of  our  investigation,  and  dispose 
of  the  case  of  Timothy.  We  have  shown  that  he  was  not  an 
apostle.  We  have  further  shown  that  he  was  not  bishop  of 
Ephesus.  We  have  thus  destroyed  the  claim  of  the  permanency 
of  the  apostolic  office,  so  far  as  Timothy  is  concerned.  And  we 
now  insist,  that  the  readers  of  the  New  Testament,  they  who 
wish  to  defend  Episcopacy  by  "  Scripture,"  should  read  the  two 
epistles  to  Timothy,  without  the  vain  and  illusory  supposition 
that  he  was  bishop  of  Ephesus.  Agreeing  with  Dr.  Onderdonk, 
that  this  point  must  be  settled  by  the  New  Testament,  and  that 
"  no  argument  is  worth  taking  into  the  account  which  has 
not  a  palpable  hearing  on  the  clear  and  naked  topic — the  scrip- 
tural evidence  of  Episcopacy^'''  (p.  3,)  we  now  insist  that  these 
epistles  should  be  read  without  being  interpreted  by  the  unsup- 
ported position  that  Timothy  was  the  permanent  bishop  of 
Ephesus.  We  insist,  moreover,  that  that  supposition  should  not 
be  admitted  to  influence  the  interpretation.  With  this  matter 
clear  before  us,  how  stands  the  case  in  these  two  epistles  ?  We 
answer,  thus : — 

(1.)  Timothy  was  sent  to  Ephesus  for  ^.  special  purpose, — to 
allay  contentions,  and  prevent  the  spreading  of  false  doctrine. 
1  Tim.  i.  3.  (2.)  This  was  to  be  temporary.  1  Tim.  i.  3 ;  corap. 
iii.  14,  15  ;  iv.  13.  (3.)  He  was  intrusted  with  the  right  of  ordi- 
nation, as  all  ministers  of  the  Gospel  are,  and  with  the  authority 
of  government.  1  Tim.  i.  3;  v.  19-21;  v.  22;  2  Tim.  ii.  2. 
(4.)  Laying  out  of  view  the  gratuitous  supposition  that  he  was 
bishop  of  Ephesus,  the  charge  given  to  Timothy  was  just  such 
a  one  as  would  be  given  to  any  minister  of  the  Gospel  author- 
ized to  preach,  to  ordain,  to  administer  the  ordinances  of  the 
Church,  and  its  discipline.  It  is  just  such  as  is  given  now  to 
men  who  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity.  The 
"  charges"  which  are  given  to  Presbyterian  and  Congregational 
ministers  at  ordination,  are  almost  uniformly  couched  in  the 
same  language  which  is  used  by  Paul  in  addressing  Timothy; 
nor  is  there  any  thing  in  those  epistles  which  may  not  be, 
and  which  is  not,  in  fact,  often  addressed  to  ministers  on  such 
occasions.  With  just  as  much  propriety  might  some  antiqua- 
rian, hereafter, — some  future  advocate  for  Episcopacy, — collect 
together  the  charges  now  given  to  ministers,  and  appeal  to 
them  as  proof  that  the  churches  in  New-England,  and  among 
Presbyterians,  were  Episcopal,  as  to  appeal  now  to  the  epistles 
to  Timothy,  to  prove  his  office  as  a  prelate.  (5.)  The  epistles 
themselves  contain  evidence  of  the  falsehood  of  the  supposition 
that  there  was  an  order  of  men  superior  to  the  presbyters  in 
^'  ministerial  powers  and  rights."  There  are  but  two  orders  of 
ministers  spoken  of  or  alluded  to  in  the  epistles, — bishops  and 
deacons.  There  is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  any  other  order. 
We  call  the  attention  of  our  readers  here,  to  an  emphatic 
remark  of  Dr.  Onderdonk,  p.  12 ;  "  All  that  we  read  in  the 
New  Testament  concerning  '  bishops,'  is  to  be  regarded  as  per 


TESTED    EY    SCRIPTtRE.  81 

taining  to  tlie  'middle  grade;'  i.  e.  nothing  in  these  epistles,  or 
elsewhere,  where  this  term  is  used,  has  any  reference  to  a  rank 
of  ministers  superior  "  in  ministerial  powers  and  rights."  The 
case  here,  then,  by  the  supposition  of  the  Episcopalians,  is  this. 
Two  epistles  are  addressed  by  an  apostle  to  a  successor  of  the 
apostles,  designated  as  such,  to  retain  and  perpetuate  the  same 
rank  and  powers.  Those  epistles  are  designed  to  instruct  him 
in  the  organization  and  government  of  the  churches.  They 
contain  ample  information,  and  somewhat  protracted  discussions 
on  the  following  topics:  The  office  of  a  presbyter.  The  qualifica- 
tions for  that  office.  The  office  of  the  deacons.  The  qualifica- 
tions for  that  office.  The  qualifications  of  deacons'  wwes.  1  Tim. 
iii.  The  proper  discipline  of  an  elder.  The  qualifications  of 
those  who  were  to  be  admitted  to  the  office  of  deaconesses. 
1  Tim.  V.  The  duties  of  masters  and  servants.  1  Tim.  vi.  The 
duties  of  laymen.  1  Tim.  ii.  8.  And  of  Christian  females.  1  Tim. 
ii.  9-11.  Nay,  they  contain  directions  about  the  Apostle's  cloak, 
and  his  parchments  ;  (2  Tim.  iv.  13;)  but  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end,  not  one  single  syllable  respecting  the  existence  of  a 
grade  of  officers  in  the  Church  superior  "  in  ministerial  rights 
and  powers  ;"  not  a  word  about  their  qualifications,  of  the  mode 
of  ordaming  or  consecrating  them,  or  of  Timothy's  fraternal 
intercourse  with  his  brother  prelates ;  nothing  about  the  subjec- 
tion of  the  priesthood  to  them,  or  of  their  peculiar  functions  of 
confirmation  and  superintendence.  In  one  word,  taking  these 
epistles  by  themselves,  no  man  would  dream  that  there  were 
any  such  officers  in  existence.  We  ask  now,  whether  any  can- 
did reader  of  the  New  Testament  can  believe  that  there  were 
any  such  officers  ;  and  that  two  epistles  could  have  been  written 
in  these  circumstances,  without  the  slightest  allusion  to  their 
existence  or  powers  ?  "  Credat  Judceus  Amelia.''''  We  ask 
whether  there  can  be  found  now,  among  all  the  charges  which 
Episcopal  bishops  have  given  to  their  clergy,  any  two  in  which 
there  shall  not  also  be  found  some  allusion  to  the  "  primitive 
and  apostolic  order"  of  bishops  in  the  churches?  It  remains 
for  our  eyes  to  be  blessed  with  the  sight  of  one  Episcopal 
charge,  reminding  us,  in  this  respect,  of  the  charges  of  Paul  to 
Timothy. 

We  now  take  our  leave  of  the  case  of  Timothy.  The  case  of 
Titus,  the  next  in  order,  pp.  26,  27,  we  must  despatch  in  fewer 
words.  The  argument  of  Dr.  Onderdonk,  in  defence  of  the 
claim  respecting  Titus,  does  not  vary  materially  from  thai  used 
in  reference  to~Timothy,  p.  20.  It  is,  that  he  was  left  in  Crete 
to  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  and  that  the  powers  of  "  ordi- 
nation, admonition,  and  rejection,  are  all  committed  to  Titus 
personally."  Titus  i.  6-9;  iii.  10.  The  only  point  here  which 
requires  a  moment's  examination,  in  addition  to  what  we  have 
said  on  the  case  of  Timothy,  is  the  purpose  for  which  he  was 
left  at  Crete.  Titus  i.  5.  The  claim  of  the  Episcopalians  here  is, 
that  this    indicates  such   a  perseverance   in  the  "  distinction 


82 


REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 


between  elders  and  a  grade  superior  to  them,"  as  to  prove  that 
it  was  "to  be  a  permanent  arrangement."  p.  23.      In  other 
words,  Titus  was  to  be  a  permanent  bishop  of  Crete,  superior  to 
the  elders  "  in  ministerial  rights  and  powers."     This  claim  it  is 
necessary  for  them  to  establish  from  the  New  Testament.  If  there 
are  any  intimations  that  it  was  not  designed  to  be  permanent, 
they  will  be  fatal  to  their  argument.     We  affirm,  then,  in  oppo- 
sition to  this  claim,  that  the  case  is  fully  met  by  the  supposition 
that    Titus  was    an    extraordinary    officer,    like   Timothy   at 
Ephesus,  appointed  for  a  specific  purpose.     1.  The  appointment 
itself  looks  as  if  this  was  the  design.     Paul  had  himself  com- 
menced a  work  there,  which  from  some  cause  he  was  unable  to# 
complete.     That  work  he  left  Titus  to  finish.    As  it  cannot  be 
pretended  that  Paul  had  any  purpose  of  becoming  the  perma- 
nent bishop  of  Crete ;    so  it  cannot  be  pretended   that  Titus' 
being  left  to  complete  what  Paul  had  begun,  is  proof  that  Paul 
expected  that  Titus  would  bepermanent  bishop.  An  appointment 
to  complete  a  work  which  is  begun  by  another,  when  the  ori- 
ginal designer  did  not  contemplate  a  permanent  employment, 
cannot  surely  be  adduced  in  proof  of  a  permanent  office.     If  I 
am  employed  to  complete  an  edifice  which  is  commenced,  it 
does  not  suppose  that  I  am  to  labor  at  it  all  my  life  ;  still  less, 
that  I  am  to  have  successors  in  the  undertaking.     We  presume 
that  this  passage,  to  most  unbiassed  minds,  would  imply  that 
Paul  expected  Titus,  after  having  completed  what  he  had  left  him 
to  do,  should  leave  the  island  of  Crete,  and  accompany  him  in  his 
travels.    2.  That  this  was  the  fact ;  that  he  had  no  expectation 
that  Titus  would  be  a  permanent  bishop  of  Crete,  superior  in 
"  ministerial  rights  and  powers,"  is  perfectly  apparent  from  the 
direction  in  this  same  epistle,  ch.  iii.  12,  "  When  I  shall  send 
Artemas  unto  thee,  or  Tychicus,  be  diligent  to  come  unto  me  at 
Nicopolisy     Here  we  find  conclusive  proof,  that  the  arrange- 
ment respecting  Titus  in  Crete  was  a  temporary  arrangement. 
To  suppose  the  contrary,  is  to  maintain  a  position  in  the  very 
face  of  the  directions  of  the  Apostle.    Every  thing  in  the  case 
shows  that  he  was  an  extraordinary  officer,  appointed  for  a  spe- 
cific purpose;  and  that  when  that  work  was  effected,  which  the 
Apostle  supposed  woidd  be  soon,  he  was  to  resume  his  station 
as  the  travelling  companion  and  fellow-laborer  of  the  Apostle. 
3.  That  this  was  the  general  character  of  Titus;  that  he  was  so 
regarded  by  Paul  as  his  companion,  and  very  valuable  to  him 
in  his  work,  is  further  apparent  from  2  Cor.  ii.  12,  13;  vii.  6-13. 
In  the  former  passage  he  says,  that  he  expected  to  meet  him  at 
Troas,   and  intimates  that  his  presence  and  help  were  very 
necessary  for  him.     "  I  had  no  rest  in  my  spirit,  because  I  found 
not  Titus  my  brother."     In  the  latter  place,  (2  Cor.  vii.  6-13,) 
we  find  him  the  companion  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  Philippi. 
Again,  (2  Cor.  xii.   18,)  we  find  him  employed  on  a  special 
embassy  to  the  Church  in  Corinth,  in  respect  to  the  collection 
for  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem.    Com  p.  Rom.  xv.  26.    And 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTORE.  88 

again  we  find  him  on  a  mission  to  Dahnatia,  2  Tim.  iv.  10, 
Assuredly  these  various  migrations  and  employments  do  not 
appear  as  if  he  was  designed  by  the  Apostle  as  tlie  permanent 
bishop  of  Crete.  4.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  Titus  regarded 
the  apostolic  mandate;  (Titus  iii.  12;)  that  he  left  Crete  in 
accordance  with  Paul's  request ;  and  as  there  is  no  intimation 
that  he  returned,  as  the  New  Testament  throws  no  light  on  that 
point,  as  indeed  there  is  not  the  slightest  proof  any  where,  that 
he  died  there,  we  come  to  the  conclusion  that  he  was  employed 
for  a  temporary  purpose,  and  that  having  accomplished  it,  he 
resumed  his  situation  as  the  companion  of  Paul.  Compare  Gal. 
ii.  1.  It  must  be  admitted,  on  all  hands,  that  the  Episcopalian 
cannot  prove  the  contrary.  Since,  moreover,  our  supposition 
meets  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  as  well  as  his,  and  we 
are  able  to  show  that  this  was  the  general  character  of  the  labors 
of  Titus,  we  shall  dismiss  his  case  also. 

The  last  argument  of  Dr.  Onderdonk  is  derived  from  the 
epistles  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia.  Rev.  ii.,  iii.  This  argu- 
ment is  embodied  in  the  following  position  :  "  Each  of  those 
churches  is  addressed,  not  through  its  clergy  at  large,  but 
through  its'  angel,'  or  chief  officer;  this  alone  is  a  very  strong 
argument  against  parity  in  favor  of  Episcopacy."  "  One  of  those 
churches  is  Ephesus ;  and  when  we  read  concerning  its  angel, 
'  T/wu  hast  tried  them  which  say  they  are  apostles,  and  are  not, 
and  hast  found  them  liars,'  do  we  require  further  evidence  that 
what  Timothy,  the  chief  officer  there,  was  in  the  year  65,  in 
regard  to  the  supreme  right  of  discipline  over  the  clergy,  the  same 
was  its  chief  officer  when  this  book  was  written,  in  96  ?"  The 
singular  number,  it  is  added,  is  used  emphatically  in  the  address 
to  each  of  the  angels,  and  "  the  individual  called  '  the  angel,'  is, 
in  each  case,  identified  with  his  church,  and  his  church  with 
him."  pp.  27,  28. 

This  is  the  argument;  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it.  We  have 
sought  diligently  to  see  its  bearing;  but  our  labor  in  doing  it  has 
not  been  crowned  with  very  flattering  success.  We  can  see,  indeed, 
that  those  churches  were  addressed  through  their  ministers,  or 
pastors,  called  "angels;"  but  it  requires  more  penetration  than 
we  profess  to  have,  to  discover  how  this  bears  on  the  precise 
point,  that  there  is  an  order  of  men  superior  to  others  "  in 
ministerial  rights  and  powers."  Such  an  argument  can  be 
founded  only  on  the  following  assumptions:  1.  That  there  was 
an  inferior  body  of  clergymen,  called  here  "  clergy  at  large." 
Assuming-  this  point,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  make  out  an 
argument  from  the  address  "  to  the  angel."  But  this  is  a  point 
to  be  proved,  not  to  be  assumed.  We  would  respectfully  ask 
the  writer  of  this  tract,  where  he  finds  an  intimation  of  the 
existence  of  an  order  of  "cZer^y  at  lar^e,''^  in  these  churches. 
In  the  epistles  themselves  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  of  the 
existence  of  any  such  personages  distinct  from  "  the  angels." 
Nay,  the  very  style  of  address   is  strong  presumption   that 


84  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

there  were  not  any  such  inferior  clergymen.  The  only  mention 
which  occurs,  is  of  the  angel  and  the  church.  We  hear  nothing 
of  an  intermediate  order ;  nothing  of  any  supremacy  of  "  the 
angel"  over  "  the  clergy  at  large ;"  not  the  least  intimation  of 
any  duty  to  be  performed  by  the  supposed  prelatical  "  angel" 
toward  the  inferior  presbyters.  Why  is  a  reference  to  them 
omitted,  if  they  had  any  existence  ?  Is  it  customary,  in  address- 
ing "  bishops"  now,  to  omit  all  reference  to  their  duties  over  the 
inferior  "  clergy  at  large  V  This  is  a  point  of  too  much  conse- 
quence to  be  left  now  so  unguarded  ;  and  accordingly  the  rights 
and  duties  of  the  order,  superior  "in  ministerial  rights  and 
powers,"  are  sedulously  marked  out  and  inculcated.*  2.  It  must 
be  assumed,  in  this  argument,  that  there  were  in  each  of  those 
cities  more  churches  than  one ;  that  there  was  a  circle,  or  con- 
federation of  churches,  that  would  answer  to  the  modern  notion 
of  a  diocese,  over  which  "  the  clergy  at  large,"  of  inferior 
"  ministerial  rights  and  powers,"  might  exercise  a  modified 
jurisdiction.  If  this  is  not  assumed,  the  argument  has  no  force  ; 
since  if  there  were  but  one  church  in  each  of  those  cities,  the 
"  angel"  was  not  a  bishop  in  the  Episcopal  sense,  but  a  pastor  in 
the  ordinary  acceptation.  Now  this  is  a  point,  which,  in  an 
argument  like  this,  should  not  be  assumed,  it  should  be  proved, 
or  at  least  rendered  highly  probable  from  the  New  Testament. 
But  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  of  any  such  divided  and  scat- 
tered diocesan  organization.  In  each  instance  the  church  is 
addressed  as  one  and  undivided.  "The  angel  of  the  church," — 
not  the  churches, — "  of  Ephesus;"  Rev.  ii.  1.  "The  angel  of 
the  church  in  Smyrna ;"  ii.  8 :  "  the  angel  of  the  church  at 
Thyalira;  ii.  18:  "the  angel  of  the  church  in  Sardis;"  iii.  1, 
&c.  In  every  instance  the  address  is  uniform.  The  point  of 
inquiry  now  is,  whether  in  this  address  the  Saviour  meant  to 
intimate  that  there  was  a  plurality  of  churches,  an  ecclesiastical, 
diocesan  organization?  This  is  a  point  for  Episcopalians  to 
prove,  not  to  assume.  Light  may  be  thrown  on  it  by  comparing 
it  with  other  places  where  a  church  is  spoken  of.  The  pre- 
sumption is  directly  against  the  Episcopalians.  It  is  that  the 
Apostles  would  not  organize  separate  churches  in  a  single  city; 
and  that  if  it  were  done  they  would  be  specified  as  the  churches. 
Accordingly,  we  learn  that  the  Apostle  organized  "  a  church" 
at  Corinth.  1  Cor.  i.  1,  2.  Thus,  also,  at  Antioch.  Acts  xiii.  1. 
Thus,  also,  at  Laodicea.  Cpl.  iv.  16.  And  in  the  epistle  to  one 
of  the  very  churches  under  consideration,  that  at  Ephesus,  it  is 
mentioned  not  as  the  churches  of  Ephesus,  but  as  the  church. 
Acts  XX.  28.  When  Paul  addressed  this  same  church  in  an 
epistle,  it  was  directed,  not  to  the  churches,  but  to  the  saints  at 
Ephesus.  Eph.  i.  1.    But  where  there  were  distinct  churches 


♦  We  of  course  lay  out  of  view,  here,  the  case  of  the  "  elders  at  Ephesus,"  as 
Ijeing  already  disposed  of;  and  as  not  being  relevant  to  Dr.  Onderdonk's  argument, 
since  that  they  were  "clergy  at  large,"  is  to  he  proved,  not  assumed. 


TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  85 

organized,  there  is  a  specific  mention  of  the  fact  of  the  plu- 
rality. They  are  mentioned  as  being  many.  Thus,  Acts 
XV.  41 :  "  Paul  went  through  Syria  confirming  (i.  e.  strength- 
ening, establishing,)  the  churches?^  Rom.  xvi.  4:  "  The  churches 
of  the  Gentiles."  1  Cor.  xvi.  1:  "The  churches  of  Galatia. 
Ve'r.  19 :  "  The  churches  of  Asia.  2  Cor.  viii.  1 :  "  The  churches 
in  Macedonia.  See  also,  2  Cor.  viii.  19,  23 ;  xi.  8 ;  Gal.  i.  22 ; 
ftev.  i.  4.  Now  it  is  neither  proved  that  there  was  a  body  of 
•'*  clergy  at  large,"  nor  that  there  were  separate  churches  in 
each  of  those  cities ;  we  ask,  What  is  the  force  of  the  argument 
of  Dr.  Onderdonk  from  this  case  ?  How  does  it  bear  on  the 
point  at  issue  ?    What  has  it  to  do  with  the  subject  ? 

With  one  or  two  additional  remarks,  we  shall  dismiss  this 
point.  The  first  is,  that  it  cannot  be  argued  from  the  term 
angel,  given  to  those  ministers,  that  they  were  Episcopal  bish- 
ops. That  term,  as  is  well  known,  has  no  such  exclusive  appli- 
cability to  a  prelate.  It  is  nowhere  else  applied  to  the  ministers 
of  religion  ;  and  its  original  signification,  "  a  messenger,"  or  its 
usual  application  to  celestial  spirits,  has  no  special  adaptedness 
to  an  Episcopal  bishop.  An  ordinary  pastor. — a  messenger 
sfent  from  God  ;  a  spiritual  guide,  and  friend  of  the  church,  will 
as  fully  express  its  sense,  as  the  application  to  a  prelate.  With- 
out invidiousness,  we  may  observe,  that  prelates  have  not  usually 
evinced  any  such  extraordinary  sanctity,  or  devotion,  as  to 
appropriate  this  title  to  themselves  alone  by  prescriptive  right. 
Our  other  remark  is,  that  the  supposition  that  these  angels 
were  pastors  of  the  churches,  presbyters  on  a  parity  with  each 
other,  and  with  all  others,  will  fully  meet  every  thing  which  is 
said  of  them  in  the  Book  of  Revelation.  This  supposition,  too, 
will  meet  the  addresses  made  to  them,  better  than  the  assump- 
tion that  they  were  prelates.  Their  union,  as  Dr.  Onderdonk 
remarks,  to  the  church  is  intimate.  "  The  angel  is  in  each  case 
identified  with  his  church,  and  his  church  with  him."  Now  to 
which  does  this  remark  best  apply,— -to  the  tender,  intimate, 
endearing  relation  of  a  pastor  with  his  people ;  to  the  blending 
of  their  feelings,  interests,  and  destiny,  when  he  is  with  them 
continually  ;  when  he  meets  them  each  week  in  the  sanctuary  ; 
when  he  administers  to  them  the  bread  of  life  ;  goes  into  their 
abodes  when  they  are  aMicted,  and  attends  their  kindred  to  the 
grave :  or  does  it  best  apply  to  the  union  subsisting  between 
the  people  of  an  extended  diocese, — to  the  formal,  unfrequent, 
and,  in  many  instances,  stately  and  pompous  visitations  of  a 
diocesan  bishop ;  to  the  kind  of  connexion  formed  between  a 
people  scattered  into  many  churches,  who  are  visited  at  intervals 
of  a  year,  or  more,  by  one  claiming  "  a  superiority  in  ministerial 
rights  and  powers,"  robed  in  lawn,  and  perhaps  with  the  crosier 
and  mitre,  as  emblematical  of  office,  state,  and  power ;  who 
must  be  a  stranger  to  the  ten  thousand  tender  ties  of  endearment, 
which  bind  as  one  the  hearts  of  a  pastor  and  his  people  ?  To  our 
minds  it  seems  clear  that  the  account  which  Dr.  Onderdonk  has 
8 


86  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

given  of  the  "  identity"  of  the  angel  and  the  church,  applies  to 
the  former,  and  not  to  the  latter.  It  speaks  the  sentiments  of 
our  heart,  as  respects  the  union  of  a  pastor  and  people.  And 
while  we  would  not  allow  ourselves  to  speak  with  disrespect  of 
the  Episcopal  office,  we  still  feel  that  the  language  of  the 
Saviour,  by  the  mild  and  gentle  John,  to  the  churches  of  Asia, 
breathes  far  more  of  the  endearing  "  identity"  of  the  pastoral 
relation,  than  it  does  of  the  comparatively  cold,  and  distant 
functions  of  one,  who,  in  all  other  lands  but  this,  has  been  invested 
with  his  office  by  the  imposing  ceremony  of  enthroning^  and 
who  has  borne,  less  as  badges  of  affection  than  of  authority,  the 
crosier  and  the  mitre. 

We  have  now  gone  entirely  through  with  the  argument  of 
Dr.  Onderdonk,  in  proof  that  there  is  an  order  of  men  superior 
"in  ministerial  rank  and  powers."  We  have  intended  to  do 
justice  to  his  proofs,  and  we  have  presented  the  whole  of  them. 

Our  readers  have  all  that  Episcopalians  rely  on  from  the 
Scriptures,  in  vindication  of  the  existence  of  such  an  order  of 
men.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on 
them.  They  advance  a  claim  which  is  indispensable  to  the 
existence  of  their  ecclesiastical  polity.  These  are  the  arguments 
on  which  they  rely.  Whether  their  arguments  justify  the  lan- 
guage of  assumption  which  we  sometimes  hear;  whether  they  are 
such  as  to  render  appropriate  the  description  of  all  people  but 
the  members  of  Episcopal  churches,  as  left  to  "  the  uncovenanted 
mercies  of  God  ;"*  whether  they  are  such  as  to  prompt,  legiti- 
mately, to  a  very  frequent  reference  to  "  the  primitive  and 
apostolic  order"  of  the  ministry ;  or  to  the  modest  use  of  the 
term  "  the  Church,"  with  an  exclusive  reference  to  themselves^ 
must  now  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  our  readers. 

It  was  our  intention,  originally,  to  have  gone  somev/hat  at 
length  into  a  defence  of  the  scripture  doctrine  of  ministerial 
parity.  But  the  unexpected  length  of  our  article  admonishes  us 
to  close.  We  are  the  less  dissatisfied  with  this  admonition,  because 
we  conceive  the  point  already  made  out.  If  Episcopalians 
cannot  make  good  their  claims  in  reference  to  their  bishop,  it 
follows  of  course  that  ministers  are  on  an  equality.  The  whole 
argument  is  concentrated  in  their  claim.    We  take  our  stand 


♦  We  do  not  charge  Dr.  Onderdonk  with  having  any  such  views  and  feelings. 
We  have  great  pleasure  in  recording  his  dissent  from  the  use  of  such  language,  and 
from  such  consequences,  p.  6.  "An  apparently  formidable,  yet  extraneous  diffi- 
culty, often  raised,  is,  that  Episcopal  claims  unckuTch  all  Non-episcopal  denomina- 
tions. By  the  present  writer  this  consequence  is  not  alloieed."  We  simply  state 
this,  with  high  gratification.  We  are  happy  also  that  we  are  not  called  upon  to 
reconcile  the  admission  with  the  claim  set  up  in  this  tract,  that  "  the  authority  of 
Episcopacy  is  permanent,  down  to  tlie  present  age  of  the  world  ;"  (p.  40;)  that  the 
obligation  of  Christians  to  support  bishops,  i.  e.  to  conform  to  Episcopacy,  is  not 
ended;  (p.  40;)  that  of  "  any  two  ministries  now  existing,  the  former  (Episcopacy> 
is  obligatory,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  latter ;  (parity,  p.  39 ;)  and  that  the  position 
cannot  be  evaded,  that  Episcopacy  is  permanently  binding,  '  even  to  the  end  of  the 
world."'  p.  39. 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  87 

here.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  there  is  somewhere  in 
the  Church  a  right  to  ordain.  Episcopalians,  with  singular 
boldness,  in  not  a  few  instances  with  professed^  and  in  all  with 
real  exclusiveness,  maintain  that  this  power  lies  only  in  the 
bishop.  They  advance  a  claim  to  certain  rights  and  powers ; 
and  if  that'  claim  is  not  made  out,  the  argument  is  at  an  end. 
The  power  of  ordination  must  remain  with  those  over  whom 
they  have  set  up  the  power  of  jurisdiction  and  control.  This 
claim,  as  we  have  seen,  is  not  made  out.  If  from  the  authority 
of  the  New  Testament,  they  cannot  succeed  in  dividing  the 
ministers  of  religion  into  various  ranks  and  orders,  it  follo\Vs 
that  the  clergy  remain  on  an  equality. 

On  this  point,  also,  they  are  compelled,  as  we  conceive,  to 
admit  the  whole  of  our  argument.  So  manifest  is  it,  that  the 
sacred  writers  knew  of  no  such  distinction ;  that  they  regarded 
all  ministers  of  the  Gospel  as  on  a  level ;  that  they  used  the 
same  name  in  describing  the  functions  of  all ;  that  they  addressed 
all  as  having  the  same  Episcopal,  or  pastoral  supervision,  that 
the  Episcopalians,  after  no  small  reluctance,  are  compelled 
at  last  to  admit  it.  They  are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
term  hishcyp  in  the  New  Testament,  does  not  in  a  single  instance 
designate  any  such  officer  as  now  claims  exclusively  that  title. 
Thus  Dr.  Onderdonk  says,  that  "  that  name  (bishop)  is  therCj 
(i.  e.  in  the  New  Testament)  given  to  the  middle  order.,  or  pres- 
byters ;  and  ALL  that  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  concerning 
*  bishops,^  (including  of  course  the  words  *  overseers,''  and  '  over- 
eight^''  which  have  the  same  derivation,)  is  to  be  regarded  as 
pertaining  to  that  middle  grade.  It  was  after  the  apostolic 
age  that  the  name  '  bishop'  was  taken  from  the  second  order 
and  appropriated  to  the  first."  p.  12.  This  admission  we  regard 
as  of  inestimable  value.  So  we  believe,  and  so  we  teach.  We 
insist,  therefore,  that  the  name  bishop  should  be  restored  to  its 
primitive  standing.  If  men  lay  claim  to  a  higher  rank  than  is 
properly  expressed  in  the  New  Testament  by  this  word,  we 
insist  that  they  should  assume  the  name  apostles.  As  they 
regard  themselves  as  the  successors  of  the  apostles;  as  they 
claim  that  Timothy,  Titus,  Andronicus,  Junia,  were  called  apos- 
tles, why  should  not  the  name  be  retained?  The  Christian 
community  could  then  better  appreciate  the  force  of  their  claims, 
and  understand  the  nature  of  the  argument.  We  venture  to 
say,  that  if  the  name  "  apostles"  were  assumed  by  those  who 
claim  that  they  are  their  successors.  Episcopacy  would  be  soon 
"  shorn  of  its  beams,"  and  that  the  Christian  world  would  dis- 
abuse itself  of  the  belief  in  the  scriptural  authority  of  any  such 
class  of  men.  We  admit  that  if  "  the  thing  sought"  (p.  12)  were 
to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures,  we  would  not  engage  in  a  contro- 
versy about  the  mere  name.  But  we  maintain  that  the  fact  here 
conceded  is  strong  presumptive  proof  that  "  the  thing  sought" 
is  not  there.  The  name,  therefore,  is  to  be  given  up ;  that  is, 
it  is  conceded  by  Episcopalians,  that  the  name  bishop  does  not 


88  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

any  where  in  the  New  Testament  designate  any  such  class  of 
men  as  are  now  clothed  with  the  Episcopal  office. 

We  remark,  now,  that  the  thing  itself  is  practically  abandoned 
by  Episcopalians  themselves.  If  other  denominations  can  be 
true  churches,,  (see  the  remark  on  p.  6,  that  the  Episcopal  claims 
do  not  "  unchurch  all  Non-episcopal  denominations,")  then  their 
ministers  can  be  true  ministers,  and  their  ordinances  valid  ordi- 
nances. Their  ministers  may  be  ordained  without  the  impo- 
sition of  the  hands  of"  a  bishop;"  and  thus  the  whole  claim  is 
abandoned.  For  what  constitutes  "  Non-episcopal  denomina- 
tions" churches,  unless  they  have  a  valid  ministry,  and  valid 
ordinances  ?  Still  further.  It  is  probably  known  to  our  readers, 
that  even  ordination  is  never  performed  in  the  Episcopal  Church 
by  the  bishop  alone.  In  the  "  Form  and  Manner  of  Ordering 
Priests,"  the  following  direction  is  given.  "  The  bishop  with 
the  priests  [presbyters]  present,  shall  lay  their  hands  severally 
upon  the  head  of  every  one  that  receiveth  the  order  of  priest- 
hood 5  the  receivers  humbly  kneeling,  and  the  bishop  saying : 
Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  priest  in 
the  Church  of  God  now  committed  unto  thee  by  the  imposition 
of  OUR  hands,^^  &c.  We  know  that  there  is  among  them  a 
difference  of  opinion  about  the  reason  why  this  is  done.  One 
portion  regard  the  bishop  as  the  only  source  of  authority.*  The 
other  suppose  that  the  presence  and  act  of  the  presbyters  express 
the  assent  and  confidence  of  the  churches,  and  that  it  is  essential 
to  a  valid  ordination.  But,  whichever  opinion  is  maintained,  it 
is,  171  fact,  a  Presbyterian  ordination.  If  not,  it  is  an  unmeaning 
and  idle  ceremony  ;  and  the  presence  of  the  presbyters  is  mere 
pageantry  and  pomp. 

We  have  now  passed  tlirough  the  argument.  Could  we  enter 
farther  into  it,  we  could  prove,  we  think,  positively,  that  there 
were  no  ministers  in  the  apostolic  churches  superior  to  pres- 
byters "in  ministerial  powers  and  rights;"  and  that  a  pres- 
bytery did  actually  engage  in  an  ordination,  and  even  in  the 
case  of  Timothy.f  But  our  argument  does  not  require  it,  nor 
have  we  room.  We  have  examined  the  whole  of  the  claims 
of  Episcopalians,  derived  from  the  New  Testainent.  Our  readers 
will  now  judge  of  the  validity  of  those  claims.  We  close,  as 
Dr.  Onderdonk  began,  by  saying,  that  if  the  claim  is  not  made 
out  on  scriptural  authority,  it  has  no  force,  or  binding  obligation 
on  mankind. 

Who  can  resist  the  impression,  that  if  the  New  Testament 
had  been  the  only  authority  appealed  to  in  other  times,  Episco- 
pacy would  long  since  have  ceased  to*urge  its  claims,  and  have 
sunk  away,  with  other  dynasties  and  dominations,  from  the 
notice  of  mankind  ?  On  the  basis  which  we  have  now  examined, 
this  vast  superstructure,  this  system  which  has  heretofore  spread 
over  the  entire  Christian  world,  this  system  which,  in  some 

*  Hooker's  Ecc,  Pol.  book  yii.  S  6.  t  1  Tim.  iv.  14. 


TESTED  BY  SCRIPTURE.  89 

periods  at  least,  has  advanced  most  arrogant  claims,  has  been 
reared.  The  world,  for  ages,  has  been  called  to  submit  to  vari- 
ous modifications  of  the  Episcopal  power.  The  world,  with  the 
single  exceptions  of  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  did  for  ages 
submit  to  its  authority.  The  prelatical  domination  rose  on  the 
ruins  of  the  liberties  of  cities,  states,  and  nations,  till  all  the 
power  of  the  Christian  world  was  concentrated  in  the  hands  of 
one  man—"  the  servant  of  the  servants  of  God  !"  The  exercise 
of  that  power  in  his  hands  is  well  known.  Equally  arrogant 
have  been  its  claims  in  other  modifications.  The  authority  has 
been  deemed  necessary  for  the  suppression  of  divisions  and 
heresies.  "  The  prelates,"  says  Milton,  "  as  they  would  have  it 
thought,  are  the  only  mauls  of  schism."  That  power  was  felt 
in  the  days  when  Puritan  piety  rose  to  bless  mankind,  and  to 
advance  just  notions  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  Streams  of 
blood  have  flowed,  and  tears  of  anguish  have  been  shed,  and 
thousands  of  holy  men  have  been  doomed  to  poverty,  and  want, 
and  imprisonment,  and  tears,  as  the  result  of  those  claims  to 
supremacy  and  validity  in  the  Church  of  God.  It  may  surprise 
our  readers  to  learn,  that  all  the  authority  from  the  Bible  which 
could  be  adduced  in  favor  of  these  enormous  claims,  has  now 
been  submitted  to  their  observation.  And  we  cannot  repress, 
the  melancholy  emotions  of  our  hearts,  at  the  thought  that  such 
power  has  been  claimed,  and  sttch  domination  exercised  by  man,, 
on  so  slender  authority  as  this ! 

We  have  little  love  for  controversy — we  have  none  for 
denunciation.  We  have  no  war  to  wage  with  Episcopacy. 
We  know,  we  deeply  feel,  that  much  may  be  said  in  favor  of  it, 
apart  from  the  claim  which  has  been  set  up  for  its  authority 
from  the  New  Testament,  Its  past  history,  in  some  respects^ 
makes  us  weep ;  in  others,  it  is  the  source  of  sincere  rejoicing 
and  praise.  We  cannot  forget,  indeed,  its  assumptions  of  power, 
or  hide  from  our  eyes  the  days  of  the  Papacy,  when  it  clothed 
in  sackcloth  the  Christian  world.  We  cannot  forget  the  days, 
not  few,  or  unimportant,  in  its  history,  when  even  as  a  part  of 
the  Protestant  religion,  it  has  brought  "a  numb  and  chill  stupid- 
ity of  soul,  an  inactive  blindness  of  mind,  upon  the  people  by  its 
leaden  doctrine  ;^  we  cannot  forget  "  the  frozen  captivity"  ©f 
the  Church,  "  in  the  bondage  of  prektesj"*  nor  can  we  remove 
from  our  remembrance  the  suflferings  of  the  Puritans,  and  the 
bloody  scenes  in  Scotland.  But  we  do  not  charge  this  on  the 
Episcopacy  of  our  times.  We  do  not  believe  that  it  is  essential 
to  its  existence.  We  da  not  believe  that  it  is  its  inevitable  tend- 
ency. With  more  grateful  feelings,  we  recall  other  events  of 
its  history.  We  associate  it  with  the  brightest  and  happiest 
days  of  religion,  and  liberty,  and  literature,  and  law.  We 
remember  that  it  was  under  the  Episcopacy  that  the  Church  in 
England  took  its  firm  stand  against  the  Papacy ;  and  that  this 

♦  Milton. 

8* 


90  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

was  its  form  when  Zion  rose  to  light  and  splendor,  from  the 
dark  night  of  ages.  We  remember  the  name  of  Cranmer, — 
Cranmer,  first,  in  many  respects,  among  the  reformers ;  that  it 
was  by  his  steady  and  unerring  hand,  that,  under  God,  the  pure 
Church  of  the  Saviour  was  conducted  through  the  agitating  and 
distressing  times  of  Henry  VIII.  We  remember  that  God 
watched  over  that  wonderful  man;  that  he  gave  this  distin^ 
guished  prelate  access  to  the  heart  of  one  of  the  most  capricious, 
cruel,  inexorable,  blood-thirsty,  and  licentious  monarchs  that 
has  disgraced  the  world ;  that  God,  for  the  sake  of  Cranmer, 
and  his  Church,  conducted  Henry,  as  "  by  a  hook  in  the  nose," 
and  made  him  faithful  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  when 
faithful  to  none  else ;  so  that,  perhaps,  the  only  redeeming  trait 
in  the  character  of  Henry,  is  his  fidelity  to  this  first  British 
prelate  under  the  Reformation.*  The  world  will  not  soon  forget 
the  names  of  Latimer,  and  Ridley,  and  Rodgers,  and  Bradford  j 
names  associated  in  the  feelings  of  Christians,  with  the  long 
list  of  ancient  confessors  "  of  whom  the  world  was  not 
worthy,"  and  who  did  honor  to  entire  ages  of  mankind,  by  seal- 
ing their  attachment  to  the  Son  of  God  on  the  rack,  or  amid 
the  flames.  Nor  can  we  forget  that  we  owe  to  Episcopacy 
that  which  fills  our  minds  with  gratitude  and  praise,  when  we 
look  for  examples  of  consecrated  talent,  and  elegant  literature, 
and  humble  devoted  piety.  While  men  honor  elevated  Christian 
feeling ;  while  they  revere  sound  learning ;  while  they  render 
tribute  to  clear  and  profound  reasoning,  they  will  not  forget  the 
names  of  Barrow  and  Taylor,  of  Tillotson,  and  Hooker,  and 
Butler; — and  when  they  think  of  humble,  pure,  sweet,  heavenly 
piety,  their  minds  will  recur  instinctively  to  the  name  of  Leigh- 
ton.  Such  names,  with  a  host  of  others,  do  honor  to  the  world. 
When  we  think  of  them,  we  have  it  not  in  our  hearts  to  utter 
one  word  against  a  Church  which  has  thus  done  honor  to  our 
race,  and  to  our  common  Christianity. 

Such  we  wish  Episcopacy  still  to  be.  We  have  always 
thought  that  there  are  Christian  minds  and  hearts  that  would 
find  more  edification  in  the  forms  of  worship  in  that  Church, 
than  in  any  other.  We  regard  it  as  adapted  to  call  forth  Christian 
energy,  that  might  otherwise  be  dormant.  We  do  not  grieve 
that  the  Church  is  divided  into  different  denominations.  To  all 
who  hold  essential  truth,  we  bid  God  speed ;  and  for  all  such 
we  lift  our  humble  supplications  to  the  God  of  all  mercy,  that 
he  will  make  them  the  means  of  spreading  the  Gospel  around 

*  It  n»jr  be  proper  here  to  remark,  that  Gramner  by  no  means  entertained  the 
modern  views  of  the  scriptural  authority  of  bishops.  He  would  not  have  coincided 
with  the  claims  of  the  tract  which  is  now  passing  under  our  review.  He  maintained 
"that  the  appointment  to  spiritual  c^ces  belongs  indifferently  to  bishops,  to  princes, 
or  to  the  people,  aocorc^ng  to.  the  pressure  of  existing  circum^nces.  He  afhr^ned 
the  original  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters ;  and  contended  that  nothing  more 
than  mere  election,  or  appointment,  is  essential  to  the  sacerdotal  office,  without  con« 
eecration  or  any  other  solemnity .^Z^e  Bm'  Lif^  of  Cranmer,  vol,  i.  p.  197, 


TESTED   BV  SCRIPTURE,  91 

the  globe.  We  ourselves  could  live  and  labor  in  friendliness 
and  love,  in  the  bosom  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  While  we 
have  an  honest  preference  for  another  department  of  the  great 
field  of  Christian  action ;  while  providential  circumstances,  and  the 
suggestions  of  our  own  hearts  and  minds,  have  conducted  us  to 
a  different  field  of  labor ;  we  have  never  doubted  that  many  of 
the  purest  flames  of  devotion  that  rise  from  the  earth,  ascend 
from  the  altars  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  that  many  of  the 
purest  spirits  that  the  earth  contains,  minister  at  those  altars,  or 
breathe  forth  their  prayers  and  praises  in  language  consecrated 
by  the  use  of  piety  for  centuries. 

We  have  but  one  wish  in  regard  to  Episcopacy.  We  wish 
her  not  to  assume  arrogant  claims.  We  wish  her  not  to  utter 
the  language  of  denunciation.  We  wish  her  to  follow  the 
guidance  of  the  distinguished  minister  of  her  Church,  whose 
book  we  are  reviewing,  in  not  attempting  to  "  unchurch"  other 
denominations.  We  wish  her  to  fall  in  with,  or  to  go  in  advance 
of  others,  in  the  spirit  of  the  age.  Our  desire  is  that  she  may 
become  throughout,— as  we  rejoice  she  is  increasingly  becom- 
ing,—the  warm,  devoted  friend  of  revivals,  and  missionary 
operations.  She  is  consolidated ;  well  marshalled ;  under  an 
efficient  system  of  laws  ;  and  pre-eminently  fitted  for  powerful 
action  in  the  field  of  Christian  warfare.  We  desire  to  see  her 
what  the  Macedonian  phalanx  was  in  the  ancient  army ;  with 
her  dense,  solid  organization,  with  her  unity  of  movement,  with 
her  power  of  maintaining  the  position  which  she  takes;  and 
with  her  eminent  ability  to  advance  the  cause  of  sacred  learn- 
ing, and  the  love  of  order  and  of  law,  attending  or  leading  all 
other  churches  in  the  conquests  of  redemption  in  an  alienated 
world.  We  would  even  rejoice  to  see  her  who  was  first  in  the 
field  at  the  Reformation  in  England,  first,  also,  in  the  field,  when 
the  Son  of  God  shall  come  to  take  to  himself  his  great  power ; 
and  whatever  positions  may  be  assigned  to  other  denominations, 
we  have  no  doubt  that  the  Episcopal  Church  is  destined  yet  to 
be,  throughout,  the  warm  friend  of  revivals,  and  to  consecrate 
her  wealth  and  power  to  the  work  of  making  a  perpetual  aggresr 
won  oil  the  territories  of  sia  and  of  death. 


ANSWER    TO    A   REVIEW 

OP 

"EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE." 


OcR  readers  will  recollect  that  at  various  periods  since  this 
tract  first  appeared,  now  more  than  three  years  ago,  we  have 
reminded  all  concerned  that  it  had  not  been  answered.  At  length, 
however,  a  champion  appears,  to  take  up  the  gauntlet  throwa 
down,  and  do  battle  for— really  we  cannot  say  for  what — 
but  against  the  claims  of  Episcopacy.  He  advances  to  the 
field  with  the  courtesy  of  a  perfect  knight,  saying  so  many 
civil  things  of  his  opponent,  that  we  regret  that  the  withholding 
of  his  name  deprives  us  of  the  opportunity  of  being  personally 
courteous  in  return.  This,  however,  we  can  see,  though  his 
armor  is  closed,  and  this  we  say  with  unfeigned  gratification, 
that  he  is  a  gentleman  of  elevated  feelings  and  honorable 
principles. 

And  now  to  the  discussion.  The  Reviewer  has  fixed  upon  one 
point  in  the  line  of  argument  in  the  tract,  and  on  it  directed  his 
main  attack.  Our  reply  must,  of  course,  correspond.  First^ 
however,  we  offer  some  preliminary  observations. 

Because  the  author  of  the  tract*  rested  the  claims  of  Episco- 
pacy finally  on  Scripture— because  he  fills  a  high  oflSce  in  the 
Church— and  because  the  tract  is  issued  by  so  prominent  an 
■  Episcopal  institution  as  the  "  Press,"  the  Reviewer  seems  to 
think  that  Episcopalians  are  now  to  abandon  all  arguments  not 
drawn  directly  from  the  holy  volume.  Not  at  all.  The  author 
of  the  tract,  in  his  sermon  at  the  consecration  of  the  four  bishops. 
in  October,  1832,  advocated  Episcopacy,  besides  on  other 
grounds,  on  that  of  there  being  several  grades  of  office  in  the 
priesthoods  of  all  religions,  false  as  well  as  true,  and  in  all  civil 
magistracies  and  other  official  structures, — and,  in  his  late  charge, 
he  adverted  to  the  evidence  in  its  favor  contained  in  the  fathers. 
And  the  "  Press,"  at  the  time  it  issued  the  tract,  issued  also  with 
it,  in  the  "  Works  on  Episcopacy,"  those  of  Dr.  Bowden  and 
Dr.  Cooke,  which  embrace  the  argument  at  large.  There  is  no 
reason,  therefore,  for  thinking  that,  however  a  single  writer 
may  use  selected  arguments  in  a  single  publication,  either  he  or 
other  Episcopalians  will  (or  should)  narrow  the  ground  they 


•  Bishop  H.  U.  Onderdonk. 

r93> 


94  ANSWER  TO    A   REVIEW   OF 

have  usually  occupied.  The  fathers  are  consulted  on  this 
subject,  because  the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  describe 
forms  an  historical  basis  for  interpreting  Scripture.  And  gene- 
ral practice,  in  regard  to  distinct  grades  among  officers,  throws 
a  heavier  burden  of  disproof  on  those  whose  interpretations  are 
adverse  to  Episcopacy :  this  latter  topic  we  shall  again  notice 
before  we  close. 

The  reviewer  thinks  that,  in  discussing  the  exclusive  claims 
of  Episcopacy,  "  the  burden  ofpT'oofWes  wholly  on  its  friends." 
But  the  correctness  of  this  assertion  depends  on  the  sense  in 
which  the  phrase  "  burden  of  proof"  is  taken.    In  a  loose  way, 
it  may  be  said  that  the  burden  of  proof  so  far  lies  on  him  who 
advances  a  proposition,  i.  e.  on  him  who  happens  to  make  the 
first  assertion  in  any  given  discussion,  as  that  he  must  adduce 
arguments  for  his  opponents  to  reply  to ;  and  it  is  sometimes 
one  of  the  arts  of  controvertists  to  manoeuvre  upon  this  rule. 
But  the  rule  is  only  technical :  it  may  further  an  orderly  discus- 
sion, but  it  does  nothing  more  toward  the  development  of  truth. 
We  suppose  the  reviewer  to  mean  this  sense  of  the  phrase,  as 
he  speaks  of  nothing  more  than  the  •'  specific  assertion^'  of  the 
tract;  but,  in  this  sense,  the  tract  fulfilled  its  duty  in  giving 
proofs.    The  "  burden  of  proof"  has,  however,  a  meaning  far 
more  important.    It  is  the  opposite  of  the  "  presumptive  argu- 
ment."   In  some  cases,  the  presumptive  argument  is  clear,  and 
it  holds  its  ground  till  disproved ;  and  in  such  a  controversy, 
the  burden  of  proof  is  a  burden  indeed.    In  other  cases,  it  is 
doubtful  on  which  side  the  presumptive  argument  lies,  and  then 
it  is  a  waste  of  time  to  talk  about  the  burden  of  proof.    Does  the 
reviewer  think  that  the  presumptive  argument  is  clearly  Sigamst 
the  exclusive  claims  of  Episcopacy?    Let  him  go  to  Ignatius,  in 
the  age  next  the  apostolic,  and  read  about  the  "  bishop,  pres- 
byters, and  deacons" — he  puts  on  such  language  a  Presbyterian 
construction — while  Episcopalians  put  on  it  theirs;  does  this 
give  him  a  clear  presumption?    Does  it  throw  the  burden  of 
proof  on  us  ?    Let  him  go  to  the  period  when  the  Reformation 
began — then  all  the  Christian  world  was  Episcopal — ^he  excepts^ 
though  we  do  not,  the  Waldenses ;  does  this  grand  fact  give  a 
presumption   against  Episcopacy?    Let  him,   again,  look  on 
Christendom  now,  and  estimate  the  majority  of  Episcopalians 
as  he  pleases— a  vast  majority  it  is,  by  any  estimate ;  does  he 
find  in  such  a  state  of  things  any  clear  consideration  that  throws 
the  burden  of  proof  on  the  exclusive  advocates  of  the  Episcopal 
ministry?    We  judge  not.    We  rather  think  it  would  not  be 
difficult  to  show  that  this  "  burden,"  so  far  as  these  topics  mty 
be  allowed  to  decide  it,  lies  upon  the  impugners  of  Episcopacy. 
We  therefore  most  respectfully  suggest  to  the  reviewer,  that  it 
probably  lies — on  a  minority  in  controversy  with  a  majority,  i.  e. 
on  Non-episcopalians — on  those  who  left  Episcopacy  at  the 
Reformation— on  those  who,  to  make  Ignatius  interpret  the 
Scriptures  relating  to  the  ministry  as  they  do,  adduce,  not  fact 


1 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY  SCRIPTDRE.  96 

or  evidence,  or  even  the  historical  chain  of  proof,  but  merely 
their  own  interpretation  of  those  Scriptures,  as  the  key  to 
Ignatius. 

We  were  much  pleased  to  find  the  reviewer  agreeing,  in  the 
main  at  least,  to  the  exclusion  of  extianeous  arguments  from 
this  controversy,  as  proposed  and  largely  insisted  on  in  the 
tract—"  to  most  of  the  observations  under  these  several  heads, 
we  give  our  hearty  assent"  Yet  such  is  human  forgetfulness, 
in  even  the  best  of  men,  that  he  strays  once  or  oftener  into 
every  one  of  these  extraneous  or  inconclusive  arguments,  as  a 
few  exemplifications,  under  the  heads  given  in  the  tract,  will 
show.  1.  The  notion  that  Episcopacy  is  adverse  to  civil  free' 
dom,  is  extraneous  and  irrelevant :  does  the  reviewer  "  assent" 
to  excluding  this  notion  ?  He  says,  "  If  the  New  Testament  had 
been  the  only  authority  appealed  to  in  other  times.  Episcopacy 
would  long  since  have  ....  sunk  away  with  other  dynasties 
and  dominations,  from  the  notice  of  mankind."  2.  Another 
extraneous  argument  is  the  accusation  that  Episcopalians  are 
not  pious  enough :  does  the  reviewer  "  assent"  to  putting  this 
imputation  out  of  view?  He  says  of  Episcopacy,  in  certain 
former  periods,  "Even  as  a  part  of  the  Protestant  religion,  it 
has  brought  '  a  numb  and  chill  stupidity  of  soul,  an  inactive 
blindness  of  mind,  upon  the  people,  by  its  leaden  doctrine  ;'  we 
cannot  forget  '  the  frozen  captivity'  of  the  Church,  '  in  the 
bondage  of  prelates.' "  3.  That  the  external  appointments  of 
Christianity  are  of  inferior  moment,  is,  argues  the  tract,  another 
irrelevant  matter :  does  the  reviewer  "  assent"  to  having  this 
plea  set  aside?  He  says,  "We  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  very 
little  moment,  in  what  particular  church  the  spirit  is  prepared 
for  its  eternal  rest."  4.  That  some  Episcopalians  unchurch  the 
Non-episcopalian  denominations,  is  an  extraneous  argument: 
does  the  reviewer  "  assent"  to  keeping  it  out  of  the  discussion? 

He  says,  "  Whether  their  arguments are  such  as  to 

render  appropriate  the  description  of  all  people  but  the  members 
of  Episcopal  Churches,  as  left  to  '  thfe  uncovenanted  mercies  of 
God  ;'  whether  they  are  such  as  to  prompt,  legitimately,  ...  to 
the  modest  use  of  the  term  '  the  Church,'  with  an  exclusive 
reference  to  themselves,*  must  now  be  left  to  the  judgment  of 
our  readers."  5.  Referring  to  authorities,  on  either  side,  who 
are  thought  to  have  contradicted  themselves,  is,  according  to  the 
tract,  irrelevant,  extraneous,  and  even  futile :  does  the  reviewer 
"assent?"  He  adduces  the  opinions  of  Cranmer,  concerning 
"the  original  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters,"  and  that 
neither  "  consecration,  nor  any  other  solemnity,"  is  essential  to 
make  a  minister  of  Christ;  while  yet  Cranmer  sanctioned  our 
Ordinal,  which  declares  that  Goo  "  appointed  divers  orders  of 
ministers  in  the  Church ;"  and  which  decrees  that  no  man  shall 


♦  Twice,  in  his  second  paragraph,  the  reviewer  uses  the  term  "  the  Church," 
with,  apparently,  an  exclusive  reference  to  Presbyterisms. 


98  ANSWER  TO   A   REVIEW   OP 

officiate  "  in  this  Church,"  without  "  Episcopal  consecration  or 
ordination;"  contradiction  enough,  we  apprehend,  to  set  aside 
Cranmer's  authority  on  this  point.  6.  The  tract  argued  that  a 
scriptural  "Amf  or  intimation"  was  enough,  in  matters  of  a 
permanent  kind,  without  an  explicit  command,  and  that  to  argue 
otherwise  is  inconclusive:  does  the  reviewer  "  assent"  to  this? 
He  asks  repeatedly  for  "explicit  proof"  of  Episcopacy,  and 
thinks  that  Episcopalians  can  do  nothing  without  it.  Thus,  in 
regard  to  all  the  six  arguments  set  aside  in  the  tract,  the  excision 
of  which  was  "  assented  "  to,  "  mostly  "  indeed,  yet  "  heartily," 
by  the  reviewer,  he  has  been  so  unfortunate  as  to  forget  him- 
self, and  employ  the  mutually  condemned  weapons.  "We  do  not 
say  that  he  has  employed  them  unkindly,  or,  any  but  the  last  of 
the  six,  as  essential  to  his  cause ;  all  we  remark  is,  that  those 
who  "  assent "  to  that  preliminary  portion  of  the  tract  ought  not  to 
use  them  at  all.  These  topics  are  valueless  to  the  sound  reasoner 
— among  the  weaker  brethren,  some  of  them  are  apt  to  produce 
irritation. 

Another  preliminary  remark  may  be  offered.  The  reviewer 
takes  no  side  on  the  question  of  valid  ordination.  Judging  from 
his  very  flattering  notice  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  he  may  be  an 
Episcopalian  in  principle,  on  the  ground  of  expediency.  Judg- 
ing from  the  periodical  in  which  his  review  appears,  he  may  be 
a  Congregationalist  in  sentiment,  and  may  regard  lay  orders  as 
good.  Judging  from  his  writing  against  the  tract,  which  argues 
only  against  a  Presbyterian  ministry,  "  passing  by  the  feeble 
claim  of  lay-ordination,"  he  may  be  a  Presbyterian.  But  he 
makes  no  profession  of  his  opinion  on  this  subject.  He  says  j — 
"The  question  after  all  might  be,  whether  it  was  the  design  of 
the  Apostles  to  establish  any  particular  form  of  church  govern- 
ment," including,  of  course,  any  particular  rule  of  ordination — 
and  he  adds,  "  This  question  we  do  not  intend  to  examine  now, 
neither  do  we  design  to  express  any  opinion  on  it."  Now  he 
has  a  right,  if  he  chooses,  in  attacking  other  opinions,  to  reserve 
his  own ;  but  it  is  much  the  same  right  that  a  rifleman  has  to  fight 
behind  a  tree — it  is  a  lawful  act,  but  not  indicative  of  peculiar 
valor.  In  the  pursuit  of  abstract  truth,  the  sentiments  of  the 
investigators  are  httle  to  the  purpose.  But  when  a  question  has 
immediate  reference  to  practical  arrangements,  it  is  strictly  rele- 
vant to  ask  an  objector  to  any  one  system,  what  system  he  proposes 
as  a  substitute ;  because  the  issue,  when  practical,  is  a  complex 
one,  including  not  only  the  questions  raised  upon  the  system 
attacked,  but  those  also  that  may  occur  concerning  the  one 
brought  forward  in  its  place.  To  oppose  one  plan,  and  yet 
name  no  other,  is  not  to  treat  the  matter  practically.  The 
reviewer  says, "  If  Episcopalians  cannot  make  good  their  claims 
in  reference  to  the  bishop,  it  follows  of  course  that  all  ministers 
are  on  an  equality."  True,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  all  called 
ministers  are  such ;  the  question  would  still  be  open  between 
presbyterian  ordination,  lay-ordination,  election  to  the  ministry 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  97 

without  ordination  or  laying  on  of  hands,  and  assuming  the 
office  without  either  election  or  ordination.  Let  any  one  duly 
consider  the  respective  principles  of  the  tract  and  the  review, 
concerning  good  order  in  the  Church— the  one  presents  a  sys- 
tem for  maintaining  it,  the  other  opposes  that  system,  yet  offers 
none  whatever  in  its  place,  it  leaves  the  ministry  open  to  any 
and  every  claimant, — let  any  one,  we  say,  consider  this  differ- 
ence between  the  two  productions,  and  then  determine  whether 
the  tract  and  its  system  have  not  been  allowed  to  hold  a 
material  advantage  by  this  indecision  or  this  reserve  of  the 
reviewer. 

While  on  this  point,  we  must  notice  a  contradiction,  or  some- 
thing very  like  one,  into  which  the  reviewer  has  fallen.  In  one 
paragraph,  "  It  would  not  prove  Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine 
origin,  could  its  friends  show  that  Presbyterianism  is  unfounded 
in  the  Scriptures ;  or  that  Congregationalism  has  no  claims  io 
support ;  or  that  Independency  is  unauthorized ;  or  even  that 
lay-ordination  is  destitute  of  direct  support" — yet,  in  another 
paragraph,  "  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  there  is  somewhere 
in  the  Church  a  right  to  ordain."  Now,  a  right  to  ordain  is  a 
divine  right,  be  it  exercised  as  it  may :  if  Scripture  is  so  inter- 
preted as  to  give  that  right  to  laymen,  or  to  presbyters,  or  to 
bishops,  the  right  is  rested  on  Scripture,  whether  its  support  be 
"direct"  or  indirect;  and,  if  sustained  by  Scripture,  it  is  of 
"divine  origin."  The  reviewer  declares  this  right  to  exist 
"somewhere  in  the  Church."  Yet  he  argues  that  if  all  kinds  of 
ordination  were  overturned  except  the  Episcopal,  it  would  not 
prove  the  latter  to  be  of  "  divine  origin."  In  other  words,  he 
argues  that  all  sorts  of  ordinations  may  be  without  authority, 
and  so  the  right  to  ordain  exists  nowhere,  while  yet  it  does  exist 
somewhere.  If  the  reviewer  denies  this  conclusion  from  his 
premises,  he  must  speak  more  plainly  concerning  "  lay-ordina- 
tion," and  say  whether  it  has  "  indirect  support"  in  Scripture. 
For  ourselves,  we  think  that  if  there  be  an  ordaining  power 
somewhere,  yet  not  in  either  of  the  other  alleged  places  of 
deposit,  it  must  be  in  the  bishops. 

And  now  we  proceed  to  the  main  objections  to  the  tract,  as 
urged  by  the  reviewer.  These  relate  to  two  points.  1.  The  as- 
sertion, in  the  tract,  "  That  the  Apostles  ordained,  all  agree." 
2.  The  inference  or  assumption,  in  the  tract — after  stating  the 
distinction  between  "  the  apostles  and  elders,"  and  after  show- 
ing that  this  distinction  did  not  arise  from  other  causes — "  It 
follows,  therefore,  or  will  not  at  least  be  questioned,  that  the 
apostles  were  distinguished  from  the  elders  because  they  were 
superior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 

1.  To  the  assertion,  "  That  the  apostles  ordained,  all  agree," 
the  reviewer  objects,  "  If  this  means  any  thing  to  the  purpose, 
it  means  that  they  ordained  as  apostles ;  or  that  they  were  set 
apart  to  the  apostolic  office  for  the  purpose  of  ordaining."  Fes- 
Una  lente,  not  too  fast.  Episcopalians  believe  undoubtedly  that 
9 


98  ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW   OP 

they  ordained  "  as  apostles,"  and  that  they  were  "  set  apart 
for  the  purpose  of  ordaining,"  besides  other  purposes.  But 
neither  of  these  points  were  involved  in  that  portion  of  th& 
argument  of  the  tract— where  the  fact  that  the  apostles 
Ordained  was  mentioned  merely  as  a  fact^  without  regard  to 
the  why  or  how.  This  mere  fact  was  assumed,  as  agreed  to  by 
all ;  yet  it  was  proved  also  from  Scripture,  on  a  subsequent  page. 
Then  followed  the  next  proposition  in  the  train,  "  That  elders 
(presbyters)  did  [ordain],  we  deny" — which  second  proposition 
is  made  good  as  tlie  tract  proceeds — nor  does  the  reviewer  gain- 
say it,  upon  evidence,  though  he  '  thinks'  he  could,  '  if  his  argu- 
ment required  it,  or  if  he  had  room.'  Here,  let  our  readers 
recollect,  that  the  argument  of  the  tract  is  with  Presbyterians 
only,  not  with  those  who  maintain  lay-orders,  and  that  it  was  of 
course  unnecessary  to  deny  that  laymen  ordained.  The  facts 
relating  to  Episcopacy  and  parity  were  first  to  be  ascertained,  as 
the  basis  of  the  argument— the  structure  to  be  erected  on  that 
basis  was  a  different  affair.  And  the  two  great  facts,  that  apos- 
tles ordained,  and  that  presbyters  did  not,  were  so  sufficiently 
ascertained  in  the  tract,  that  the  reviewer  does  not  controvert 
either  of  them,  by  stating  facts  of  a  contradictory  sort.  To  the 
facts  only  should  attention  be  given  in  the  first  place,  and  no 
construction  or  reasoning  should  be  intermixed  with  the  develop- 
ment of  them.  If,  after  this  development  of  facts,  it  should  be 
argued  or  denied  that  the  apostles  ordained  "  as  apostles,"  or 
were  set  apart  for  that  "  purpose"  among  others,  very  well — only 
let  the  assertion  or  denial  wait  till  the  foundation  is  laid. 

The  tract,  in  the  portion  of  it  under  consideration,  draws  no 
inference  from  the  two  facts  mentioned,  but  proceeds  to  an 
entirely  different  line  of  argument  to  prove  ministerial  imparity. 
It  quotes  the  expression,  from  the  record  of  the  council  held  at 
Jerusalem,  "  apostles  and  elders,"  and  asserts  that  it  shows  the 
two  sets  of  persons  so  named  to  have  been  as  distinct  from  each 
other,  as  were  the  laity  from  both,  in  the  passage  "  apostles,  and 
elders,  and  brethren" — and  from  the  former,  in  the  passage 
"  apostles  and  brethren" — adding,  "  apostles  were  therefore  one 
class,  and  elders  another  class,  just  as  the  laity  were  a  third 
class."  This  seems  clear  enough,  nor  does  the  reviewer  ques- 
tion it.  The  tract  then  proceeds  to  show,  that  the  apostles  were 
not  thus  distinguished  because  appointed  by  Christ  personally 
— nor  because  they  had  seen  our  Lord  after  his  resurrection — nor 
only  (as  the  tract  further  states,  though  the  reviewer  forgets  that 
it  does  so,)  because  they  were  special  witnesses  of  that  event — 
nor  because  they  worked  miracles — for  sustaining  all  which 
propositions  reasons  are  given.  It  then  draws  the  conclusion, 
that  the  apostles  were  thus  distinguished  from  the  elders  because 
they  were  "  superior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 
This  is  the  line  of  argument  which  introduces  the  reasoning 
against  parity.  And  it  brings  us  to  the  second  of  the  main 
objections  to  the  tract,  offered  by  the  reviewer. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  99 

2.  In  bringing  this  portion  of  the  Episcopal  argument  to  the 
inference  mentioned,  apostolic  pre-eminence,  the  author  of  the 
tract  says—"  It  follows,  therefore,  [from  the  premises  just  enu- 
merated,] or  at  least  will  not  be  questioned,  that  the  apostles 
were  superior  to  the  elders  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 
Here  are  two  assertions—''  it  follows" — "  or  it  will  not  be  ques- 
tioned"— either  is  sufficient  for  the  reasoning  of  the  tract. 

The  assertion  "  it  follows,"  means,  of  course,  '  if  the  previous 
statement  holds  good;'  and  that  in  this  case  the  inference  is 
just,  the  reviewer  does  not  controvert.  And  it  would  be  difficult 
to  do  so  ;  for,  so  far  as  we  recollect,  every  other  point  in  which 
distinction  could  even  plausibly  be  claimed  for  the  apostles,  had 
been  set  aside  by  the  tract,  (as  the  reader  will  see  in  our  para- 
graph next  but  one  above,)  leaving  only  the  one  distinction  of 
"  ministerial"  superiority.  The  inference,  therefore,  that  this 
was  the  distinction  implied  in  the  expression  "  apostles  and 
elders,"  is  neither  forced  nor  unreasonable,  it  follows  justly  from 
the  premises  stated.  And  when  it  is  considered  that  the  distinc- 
tion was  made  in  an  ecclesiastical  council,  it  will  be  acknow- 
ledged that  this  ground  for  it  was  the  most  natural  one  that  could 
be  assigned. 

But  it  was  important  to  add,  that  the  ministerial  superiority  of 
the  apostles  "  would  not  he  que&tionedy  Yet  here  the  reviewer* 
is  all  astonishment !  Here  is  a  link  of  straw  in  the  argument  of 
the  tract,  whatever  be  the  material  of  the  rest  of  the  chain ! 
What !  trust  any  portion  of  the  proof  of  Episcopacy  to  an  asser- 
tion that  "  will  not  be  questioned !"  Even  so  :  the  author  of  tj^e 
tract  has  been  guilty  of  this  most  egregious  oversight,  and  he 
must  submit  to  the  due  castigation.  We  shall  see.  But  first  let 
the  reviewer  speak  for  himself. 

"  He  next  attempts  to  show,  that  this  distinction  [between 

*  apostles  and  elders']  was  not  made  because  they  [the  apostles] 

*  were  appointed  by  Christ  personally,'  nor  because  '  they  had 
seen  our  Lord  after  his  resurrection ;'  nor  '  because  of  their 
power  of  working  miracles :'  and  then  the  writer  adds,  '  It  fol- 
lows, therefore,  or  will  not  at  least  be  questioned,^ — a  qualifica- 
tion which,  by  the  way,  seems  to  look  as  if  the  writer  had  him- 
self no  great  confidence  in  the  consecutiveness  of  the  demon- 
stration,—' that  the  apostles  were  distinguished  from  the  elders 
because  they  were  superior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and 
rights.'  This  is  the  argument,  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it.  On 
the  making  out  of  this  point,  depends  the  stupendous  fabric  of 
Episcopacy.  Here  is  the  corner-stone  on  which  rests  the 
claims  of  bishops ;  this  the  position  on  which  the  imposing  and 


*  At  this  point  of  our  manuscript  we  receive  a  copy  of  the  RevHlew,  separate  from 
the  rest  of  the  periodical  in  which  it  appeared,  and  entitled  "Examination  of 'Epis- 
copacy Tested  by  Scripture.'  "  We  ought  therefore,  perhaps,  to  say  "  examiner," 
instead  of  "  reviewer."  But  as  the  latter  word  is  commonly  used  in  such  aiticles 
as  the  present,  we  retain  it. 


100  ANSWER  TO   A  REVIEW   OP 

mighty  superstructure  has  been  reared.  Our  readers  will  join 
with  us  in  our  amazement,  that  this  point  has  not  been  made 
out  with  a  clearer  deduction  of  arguments,  than  such  as  were 
fitted  to  lead  to  the  ambiguous  conclusion — '  It  follows,  there- 
fore, or .'  " 

Now,  what  will  be  the  reviewer's  "  amazement,"  when  we 
assure  him  that  "  this  is  the  whole  of  his  argument"  affecting 
the  tract !  Yet  such  is  the  case:  for  the  reasonings,  throughout 
his  article,  are  much  the  same  with  those  usually  brought  against 
Episcopacy;  and  where  not  the  same,  they  are  so  much  minus 
the  former  ground,  which  the  tract  left  far  behind  in  proceeding 
with  its  inductive  demonstration,  as  we  deem  it,  of  that  form  of 
the  ministry.  No  one,  for  three  years,  brought  those  old  reason- 
ings against  the  tract— no  one,  till  the  reviewer  fancied  he  had 
discovered  a  weak  spot  in  it,  and  might  therefore  reproduce 
some  of  them  with  effect.  Here,  then,  is  the  grand — we  may  say 
the  one  point  of  contest ;  for  if  we  can  make  good  our  cause 
here,  we  may  leave  the  rest  of  the  old  matter  of  the  review,  or 
so  much  of  it  as  we  please,  where  it  has  reposed  for  three  years. 
The  present  is  only  a  start  in  its  slumber. 

"  Amazement !"  Does  the  reviewer  deny  the  assertion,  that 
"  it  will  not  be  questioned  that  the  apostles  were  superior  to  the 
elders  in  ministerial  power  and  rights  ?"  we  should  be  "  amazed" 
if  he  did— ought  we  to  be  "  amazed"  that  he  neither  denies  nor 
allows  it?  His  uninitiated  readers,  however,  will  understand 
his  article  as  contradicting  the  tract  on  this  point.  He  says, 
iiWeed,  with  Non-episcopal  writers  generally,  that  the  apostles 
held  only  an  extraordinary  and  temporary  power  over  other 
ministers  ;  but  this  is  not  the  point  in  that  portion  of  the  argu^ 
ment  of  the  tract ;  which  was  only  to  show  the  fact  that  the 
apostles  were  superior  to  them,  leaving  to  subsequent  investiga- 
tion to  decide  whether  this  superiority  was  temporary  or  not, 
extraordinary  or  not.  Is  it  not,  then,  a  fact,  that  the  apostles 
were  "  superior  to  the  elders  in  ministerial  power  and  rights  ?" 
was  it  not  fair  to  say,  that  this  assertion  would  "  not  be  ques- 
tioned ?"  To  settle  this  matter  we  shall  adduce  Non-episcopal 
authorities,  and  in  sufficient  number,  we  trust,  to  satisfy  our 
readers;  merely  adding,  that  we  do  not  recollect  any  who 
"question"  it,  unless  they  question  or  deny  also  an  ordained 
ministry— unless  they  are  other  than  Presbyterians  (proper,) 
with  whom  only  the  tract  was  in  controversy. 

In  substantiating  this  assertion  by  the  authorities  we  shall 
quote,  we  apprize  our  readers  that  they  include  "  evangelists" 
with  the  apostles,  and  that  they  regard  the  superior  powers  of 
both  as  extraordinary  and  temporary.  Their  allowing  rights 
over  the  clergy  to  evangelists,  shows  that  they  did  not  regard 
those  rights  as  confined  to  the  thirteen  principal  Apostles— 
which  is  something  for  Episcopacy.  Their  opinion  that  these 
rights  were  extraordinary  and  transient,  has  no  bearing  on  the 
simple/act  that  they  existed.    With  the  Non-episcopal  tone  of 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  101 

the  language  of  these  writers  we  have,  in  using  them  for  this 
fact,  nothing  to  do. 

The  late  Dr.  Wilson.  "  But  it  so  happens,  that  the  conformity 
in  duties  between  the  diocesan  bishop  and  the  apostle  and 
primitive  evangelist ;  and  the  contrast  of  the  oversight  of  an 
individual  church  by  its  presbyters,  with  an  Episcopate  in  after 
ages;  are  now  adopted  as  arguments  to  prove,  contrary  to  the 
verity  of  facts,  that  diocesan  bishops  are  actually  the  successors 
in  office  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists,  and  not  of  the  presby- 
ters in  the  churches."  (p.  252.)  That  is,  the  apostles  and  evan- 
gelists held  an  "  office"  the  "  duties"  of  which  conformed  to 
those  of  diocesan  bishops  ;  of  course  they  were  superior  to  pres- 
byters in  ministerial  power  and  rights.  Again,  speaking  of  the 
office  of  Timothy,  as  an  evangelist,  "This  office  was  superior 
to  that  of  pastors  even  teachers."  (p.  253.)  Again  :  "  There  is 
little  more  propriety  in  bringing  the  apostolic  office  down  to  a 
level  with  that  of  presbyters  or  bishops,  or  of  elevating  the  latter 
to  the  grade  of  the  former,  than  of  supposing  every  governor  an 
alderman,  or  every  alderman  a  governor  of  a  state,  because 
commissioned  by  such."  (p.  268.) 

Dr.  Miller.  "  It  is  evident,  from  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripturej. 
that  the  apostolic  character  was  superior  to  that  of  the  evan-. 
gelists :  and  Paul,  especially,  always  addresses  Timothy  and 
Titus  in  a  style  of  authority.''^  Again,  "  We  hold  that  all  the 
authority  over  other  ministers,  with  which  the  apostles  and 
evangelists  were  vested,  was  extraordinary,  and  necessarily 
arose  from  the  sacred  canon  not  being  yet  complete,  and  the 
Church  not  yet  settled."  (pp.  107,  108,  1st  edit.)  That  is :  the 
elders  were  inferior  to  the  evangelists  in  "  vested"  authority,  and 
these  inferior  to  the  apostles---greatly  superior  then  must  the 
apostles  have  been  to  the  elders ^in  "  vested"  authority— so  "  we 
hold,"  says  Dr.  Miller,  we  Presbyterians.  To  this  eminent 
divine,  then,  the  author  of  the  tract  may  transfer  the  responsi- 
bility of  saying,  that  "  the  ministerial  superiority  of  the  apostles 
will  not  questioned,"  by  that  denomination,  —  their  "vested" 
official  superiority.'^ 

Dr.  Campbell.  "  No  doubt  they  [the  apostles]  may  be  styled 
bishops  or  overseers,  but  in  a  sense  very  different  from  that  in 
which  it  is  applied  to  the  inspector  [presbyter-bishop}  over  the 
inhabitants  oi  a  particular  district.  They  were  universal  bishops  ; 
the  whole  Church,  or  rather,  the  whole  earth  was  their  charge-, 
and  they  were  all  colleagues  one  of  another."  (p.  77.) 

Matthew  Henry.  "  The  officers  which  Christ  gave  to  his 
Church  were  of  two  sorts ;  extraordinary  ones,  advanced  to  a 
hig^herofdce  in  the  Church;  such  were  apostles,  prophets,  and 
evangelists.    The  apostles  were  chief And  then  there 


*  We  have  somewhat  amplified  this  paragraph  in  the  reprint  to  give  us  the 
ben^t  of  Dr.  Miller's  name  against  the  Biblical  Repertory  for  April,  1835. 
5* 


102  ANSWER  TO  A  REVIEW  OF 

are  ordinary  ministers,  employed  in  a  lower  or  narrower  sphere, 
as  pastors  and  teachers."  (On  Eph.  iv.  11.) 

The  Divines  who  argued  with  Charles  /.,  in  the  Isle  of  Wight, 
J'  Those  that  would  carry  it  (Episcopacy)  higher,  endeavored  to 

imp  it  into  the  apostolical  office and  so  the  apostolical 

office,  (excepting  the  gifts,  or  enablements  confessed  only  extra- 
ordinary) is  brought  down  to  be  Episcopal,  and  the  Episcopal 
raised  up  to  be  apostolical.  Whereupon  it  follows  that  the 
highest  officers  in  the  Church  are  put  into  a  lower  orb;  an 
extraordinary  office  turned  into  an  ordmary  distinct  office,  con^ 
founded  with  that  which  in  the  Scripture  is  not  found,  a  tempo- 
rary and  an  extinct  office  revived."  (p.  6.)  In  other  words,  those 
divines  allow  the  official,  i.  e.  the  "  ministerial"  superiority  of 
the  apostles  over  presbyters  to  have  been  even  greater  than  that 
claimed  by  bishops-^but  this  latter  claim  they  reject. 

Calvin.  "  So  those  twelve  individuals,  whom  the  Lord  chose 
to  promulgate  the  first  proclamation  of  his  Gospel  to  the  world, 
preceded  all  other  in  order  and  dignity."  Again  ;  "  By  '  evan- 
gelists' I  understand  those  who  were  inferior  to  the  apostles  in 
dignity,  but  next  to  them  in  office^  and  who  performed  similar 
functions."     (Inst.  b.  4,  c.  3,  s.  4,  5.) 

Thus,  from  Calvin  downward,  it  is  proved  to  he  the  belieJ  of 
Presbyterians,  as  is  asserted  in  the  tract,  that  "  the  apostles  were 
distinguished  from  the  elders  because  they  were  superior  to 
them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights."  No  Presbyterian,  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  appellation,  "questions"  it— none  that  we 
know  of— though  some,  into  whom  we  have  just  looked,  are  not 
explicit  on  this  particular  point.  As  to  this  superiority  having 
been  part  of  the  extraordinary  prerogative  of  the  thirteen  Apos- 
tles, we  refer  to  the  tract  itself,  where  it  is  shown  that  the  pre- 
eminence of  certain  officers  in  the  Church  over  elders  is  recog- 
nised in  other  individuals,  and  as  perpetual.  We  may  add  a 
word  or  two,  on  this  point,  as  we  proceed. 

So  far,  then,  the  tract  is  safe :  nay,  those  who  are  versed  in 
the  Episcopal  controversy  will  think  this  part  of  our  labor 
supererogatory ;  but  many,  we  are  sorry  to  say,  know  little  of 
the  argument  concerning  this  branch  of  the  institutions  of  our 
Lord— and  these  may  learn  that  there  was  no  cause  for  the 
"  amazement"  of  the  reviewer. 

We  have  now  further  to  remark,  that  the  reviewer  says  that 
the  passage  we  quoted  from  him  contains  the  "whole"  argu- 
rnent  of  the  tract  on  the  point  just  discussed.  This  is  an  over- 
sight. The  tract,  at  this  very  point,  referred  to  a  previous  note, 
which  reads  thus : — 

"  That  the  Apostles  alone  ordained  will  be  proved.  In  1  Cor. 
iv.  19-21 ;  V.  3-5 ;  2  Cor.  ii.  6 ;  vji.  12 ;  x.  8 ;  xiii.  2,  10 ;  and 
1  Tim.  i.  20,  are  recorded  inflictions  and  remissions  oi  discipline 
performed  by  an  Apostle,  or  threatenings  on  his  part,  although 
there  must  have  been  elders  in  Corinth,  and  certainly  were  in 
Ephesus."    (Tract,  p.  12.) 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  103 

This  note,  as  referring  to  several  passages  of  Scripture,  should 
be  considered  as  part  of  the  argument  of  which  the  reviewer 
inadvertently  says,  he  gives  "  the  whole  of  it " — the  argument, 
in  the  tract,  for  the  ministerial  superiority  of  apostles  over 
elders.  Let  us  examine  this  note  in  detail,  and  see  how  much 
proof  to  this  effect  it  condenses  in  a  few  lines. 

There  must  have  been  elders  in  Corinth  when  the  epistles 
were  written  to  them.  We  prove  this  by  the  language  of  Paul 
»— "  As  a  wise  master  builder  I  have  laid  the  foundation,  and 
another  buildeth  thereon."  We  prove  it  by  the  language,  hyper- 
bolical indeed  in  the  number,  yet  decisive  of  the  fact — "Though 
ye  have  ten  thousand  instructers  in  Christ."  We  prove  it  by 
the  language,  in  reference  to  the  right  of  the  clergy  to  be  main- 
tained by  their  flocks — "  If  others  be  partakers  of  this  power 
over  you,  are  not  we  rather?"  We  prove  it  by  the  fact  that 
the  "  Lord's  Supper "  was  celebrated  in  that  church,  which 
required  an  elder,  at  the  least.  We  prove  it  by  the  language, 
concerning  some  of  the  Corinthian  teachers — •"  Are  they  minis- 
ters q/"  Christ I  am  more."    Not  only  then  do  we  say, 

with  the  author  of  the  tract,  "  there  must  have  been  elders  in 
Corinth,"  but  we  assert  it  positively,  there  were,  at  the  time  Paul 
wrote  the  two  epistles  to  that  church. 

Yet,  without  noticing  these  elders  in  the  matter,  so  far  as  the 
epistles  show,  though  they  doubtless  were  noticed  and  consulted 
as  much  as  courtesy  and  their  pastoral  standing  made  proper — 
without  putting  the  matter  into  their  hands,  or  even  passing  it 
through  their  hands,  Paul  threatens,  inflicts,  and  remits  disci- 
pline among  the  people  of  their  charge.  This  is  a  "  ministerial " 
act.  And  Paul's  doing  it  himself,  instead  of  committing  it  to 
the  elders,  shows  that  he,  an  apostle,  was  "  superior  to  them  in 
ministerial  power  and  rights."  This  conclusion  is  unavoidable, 
if  the  fact  be  sustained.  Let  us  then  look  to  the  fact— our  readers, 
we  trust,  will  accompany  us  patiently. 

"  But  /  will  come  to  you  shortly,  if  the  Lord  will,  and  will 
know,  not  the  speech  of  them  which  are  puffed  up,  but  the 
power, 

For  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  in  word,  but  in  power. 

What  will  ye  1  shall  /come  to  you  with  a  rod,  or  in  love, and 
in  the  spirit  of  meekness?"  (1  Cor.  iv.  19-21.) 

Here  is  "  power  "  and  "  a  rod,"  to  be  exercised  under  God's 
"  kingdom  "  or  sovereignty,  and  by  one  man,  an  apostle,  if  those 
who  were  "  puffed  up  "  did  not  humble  themselves.  Here  is 
church  discipline  threatened,  not  by  or  through  the  elders,  but 
b)'  an  apostle  individually,  and  with  the  rod  in  his  hands. 

'•  For  /  verily,  as  absent  in  body  but  present  in  spirit,  have 
judged  (in  the  margin  determined)  already,  as  though  I  were 
present,  concerning  him  that  hath  so  done  this  deed. 

In  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesos  Christ,  when  ye  are  gathered 
together,  and  my  spirit,  with  the  power  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ, 


104  »  ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW    OP 

To  deliver  such  a  one  unto  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the 
flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus*" 
(lCk)r.  v.3-5.) 

Here  is  an  act  of  church  discipline,  nothing  less  than  excom- 
munication ;  and  who  inflicts  it  ?  the  elders  at  Corinth  ?  By  no 
means.  Paul  does  it.  The  Apostle  "judges"  and  determines 
to  "deliver  to  Satan"  the  unworthy  Christian— and  to  do  it 
when  that  church,  and  "his  spirit"  were  assembled  together, 
himself  being  in  that  sense  present  when  his  sentence  was  exe- 
cuted. Who  read  his  sentence  in  the  assembly,  we  are  not 
informed ;  probably  one  of  the  elders.  Who  ejected  the  man 
personally,  if  that  mode  of  executing  the  sentence  was  added  to 
the  reading  of  it,  we  are  not  told.  It  is  enough  that  the  "judg- 
ment," the  decision,  the  authority  for  the  discipline,  was  that  of 
an  apostle  alone,  and  evinced  his  superiority,  in  ministerial 
functions,  to  the  elders  of  that  church.  The  excommunication 
led,  of  course,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  man  from  the  friendship 
and  kind  offices  of  the  brethren  ;  and  this  is  called  bis  "  punish- 
ment inflicted  of  many,"  in  the  passage  we  are  next  to  quote. 

"  Sufficient  to  such  a  man  is  this  punishment,  which  was 
inflicted  of  many. 

To  whom  ye  forgive  any  thing,  /forgive  also ;  for  if /forgave 
any  thing,  to  whom  /  forgave  it,  for  your  sakes  forgave  I  it  in 
the  person  q/"  Christ."  (2  Cor.  ii.  6,  10.) 

Here  is  a  remission  of  discipline,  not  by  the  elders,  but  by  an 
apostle  ;  he  pronounces  the  punishment  to  be  "  sufficient."  The 
brethren  forgive  the  scandal  of  the  man's  conduct,  he  having 
become  penitent  j  and  Paul  forgives  him,  by  removing  the  sen- 
tence. .  They  forgave  as  men  and  fellow  Christians — he  forgave 
"  in  the  person  of  Christ." 

With  such  illustrations  of  an  apostle's  power  to  threaten  dis- 
cipline, to  inflict  discipline,  and  to  remit  discipline,  we  shall 
understand  the  force  of  the  other  passages  in  the  epistles  to  the 
Corinthians,  referred  to  in  the  note  we  have  quoted  from  the 
tract 

"  Wherefore,  though  I  wrote  unto  you,  I  did  it  not  for  his 
cause  that  had  done  the  wrong,  nor  for  his  cause  that  suffered 
wrong,  but  that  our  care  for  you  in  the  sight  of  God  might  appear 
unto  you."  (2  Cor.  vii.  12.) 

"But  though  I  should  boast  somewhat  more  of  our  authority^ 
(which  the  Lord  hath  given  us  for  edification,  and  not  for  your 
destruction,)  I  should  not  be  ashamed."  (2  Cor.  x.  8.) 

"  I  told  you  before,  and  foretell  you,  as  if  I  were  present  the 
second  time  ;  and  being  absent,  now  I  write  to  them  which  here- 
tofore have  sinned,  and  to  all  other,  that  if  I  come  again  /  will 
not  spare." 

"  Therefore  I  write  these  things  being  absent,  lest  being  present 
/should  use  sharpness,  according  to  \\ie  power  which,  the  Lord 
hath  given  me  to  edification,  and  not  to  destruction."  (2  Cor. 
xiii.  2,  10.) 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  105 

So  much  for  the  Corinthian  church  and  its  elders.  The 
^reviewer  was  certainly  mistaken  when  he  said  he  had  given 
"  the  argument"  of  the  tract,  "  the  whole  of  it,"  for  the  assertion 
that  "  the  apostles  were  distinguished  from  the  elders  because 
they  were  superior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 
He  gave  but  a  fraction  of  it. 

Now  turn  we  to  the  further  proof  of  that  assertion,  alluded  to 
in  the  tract,  in  the  case  of  the  church  at  Ephesus.  There  "  cer- 
tainly were"  elders  in  Ephesus,  when  Paul  wrote  the  first  epistle 
to  Timothy.  We  prove  this  fact  from  the  language,  "  That  thou 
mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine:" 
teachers  then  there  were  in  that  cliurch,  public  teachers,  author- 
ized teachers,  and  such  are  not  the  ruling  elders  or  deacons  of 
parity,  nor,  (except  under  the  bishop's  license,)  the  deacons  of 
Episcopacy ;  therefore  both  these  parties,  the  only  ones  con- 
cerned with  the  tract,  must  agree  that  they  "  certainly  "  were 
elders  or  presbyters.  We  prove  it  by  the  Apostle's  condemna- 
tion of  Hymeneus  and  Alexander,  for  "  making  shipwreck  con- 
cerning faith,"  i.  e.  making  shipwreck  in  teaching  the  faith, 
teaching  it  publicly  and  with  authority — and  these  teachers 
were  elders,  for  the  reasons  just  given.  We  prove  it  also  from 
the  fact  that  there  were  elders  at  Ephesus,  when  Paul  said  to 
them,  in  Acts  xx.,  "  Grievous  wolves  shall  enter  in  among  you 
,  .  .  also  of  your  ow7i  selves  shall  men  arise,  speaking  perverse 
things ; "  Paul  thus  declaring  that  the  false  teaching  at  Ephesus 
would  be  by  elders,  and  would  occur  afterward,  it  not  having 
occurred  as  yet:  that  the  false  teaching  would  be  by  elders, 
seems  decisive  in  favor  of  the  assertion  that  the  false  teaching 
there  was  by  elders,  as  we  have  just  maintained:  that  the  false 
teaching  was  yet  to  occur,  when  there  were  already  elder^  in 
Ephesus  addressed  by  Paul,  in  Acts  xx.,  is  proof  that  that  church 
had  its  elders  when  this  evil  indoctrination  had  occurred,  which 
was  the  case  when  Paul  first  wrote  to  Timothy,  as  our  extracts 
from  that  epistle  show.  This  latter  argument  we  consider  final: 
the  epistle  enumerates,  as  errors  then  existing  there,  "  fables, 
endless  genealogies,  swerving  from  charity  and  faith  to  vain 
jangling,  questions  and  strifes  of  words,  perverse  disputings  of 
men  of  corrupt  minds  and  destitute  of  the  truth,  profane  and 
vain  babblings,  and  oppositions  of  science  falsely  so  called;" 
yv«(r£w?,  perhaps  gnosticism,  as  Hammond  argues.  This  was  the 
state  of  things  at  Ephesus,  when  Paul  wrote  the  epistle.  But 
when  he  addressed  the  "  elders,"  in  Acts  xx.,  he  spoke  of 
nothing  of  the  sort  as  having  existed,  or  as  existing  then,  but 
only  as  to  exist  at  a  future  time.  If  then  there  were  elders  there 
before  these  mischiefs  appeared,  there  "certainly  were"  when 
they  were  afterward  developed— ^i.  e.  when  Paul  wrote  the  first 
epistle  to  Timothy. 

Well  then — is  the  discipline  of  the  church  at  Ephesus 
intrusted  to  these  elders?  Nothing  like  it.  As  in  the  case  of 
the  Corinthians,  that  "  power  was  given  by  the  Lord  "  to  an 


106  ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW    OF 

apostle,  and  only  an  apostle  exercised  it.    Read  the  proof  of 
this  fact. 

"  Of  whom  is  Hymeneus  and  Alexander  j  whom  /  have 
delivered  tinto  Satan,  that  they  may  learn  not  to  blaspheme." 
(1  Tim.  i.  2a) 

It  is  the  apostle  that  inflicts  the  discipline ;  the  elders  do  not 
appear  in  the  matter.  And  discipline  is  a  "  ministerial "  function ; 
and  excommunication  its  highest  exercise. 

Again,  therefore,  we  repeat,  that  this  part  of  the  tract  must 
have  escaped  the  reviewer's  notice,  when  he  declared  that  he 
had  given  its  "whole  argument"  for  the  "  ministerial  superior- 
ity" of  the  apostles.  Perhaps  it  would  have  been  better  had 
the  author  of  the  tract  expanded  his  note,  so  as  to  have 
presented  the  argument  more  at  length,  or  have  given  it  in 
a  larger  form  in  the  appendix.  But  the  note,  as  it  stands, 
adverts  to  every  point  that  here  occupies  three  or  more  of  our 
pages. 

As  to  the  plea  that  the  apostles  exercised  these  rights  and 
powers  as  extraordinary  officers,  not  to  be  continued  in  the 
Church,  we  remark,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  is  an  admission 
that  they  had  these  rights  and  powers.  It  is  the  usual  plea  of 
Non-episcopal  writers,  as  we  have  shown,  and  having  brought 
this  fact  to  the  recollection  of  the  reviewer,  he  will  be  "amazed" 
at  himself  we  think,  for  having  been  "  amazed"  at  the  assertion 
of  the  tract,  that  it  "  would  not  be  questioned."  But,  in  the  next 
place,  the  plea  is  not  a  sound  one,  for  these  powers  and  rights 
passed  beyond  the  thirteen  Apostles  to  other  men,  as  Barnabas, 
Timothy,  Titus,  and  the  angels  of  the  seven  Asian  churches  j 
see  the  tract.  Not  so  fast,  says  parity ;  these,  or  some  of  them, 
werg  "  evangelists,"  and  they  also  were  extraordinary  and  tem- 
porary officers ;  to  which  we  reply,  that  Timothy  alone  is  called 
an  evangelist  in  Scripture,  the  rest  are  not.  Perhaps,  however, 
the  reviewer  thinks,  and  if  so,  we  agree  with  him,  that  the  tract 
has  routed  the  plea  commonly  rested  by  Non-episcopalians  on 
the  title  "  evangelist,"  as  he  does  not  name  the  word,  but  merely 
says  that  Timothy  and  Titus  had  a  "  temporary  "  function  in 
regulating  churches  and  ministers.  This  was  certainly  prudent 
in  him,  for  the  postscript  to  the  tract  has  fairly  given  that  plea 
to  the  winds.  But  let  the  re^'iewer  examine  where  his  neio 
position  leaves  him.  Thus,— Timothy  and  Titus  have  but  tem- 
porary  duties,  not  because  they  are  evangelists,  but  because  they 
do  not  remain  permanently  in  one  station,  call  it  a  diocese,  or 
any  thing  else — we  ask,  then,  do  elders,  or  did  they,  remain 
permanently  in  one  station,  call  it  a  parish,  a  congregation,  a 
church,  or  what  you  please  1  if  not,  then  elders  also,  by  the 
same  argument,  exercised  only  a  temporary  function,  and  so  we 
have  710  ministry  left.  Take  Apollos,  for  example  ;  was  he  not 
an  elder,  at  the  least  ?  is  he  not  called  a  "  minister  "  by  Paul, 
and  did  he  not  "  water"  at  Corinth  what  Paul  had  planted  ?  if 
the  reviewer  says  he  was  more  than  an  elder,  he  contradicts  the 


EPISCOPACV   TESTED  BV  SCRIPTURE.  107 

parity  he  would  defend,  for  he  then  makes  two  orders  in  the 
ministry ;  if  he  calls  him  an  evangelist,  he  retreats  from  his  new 

f)osition,  of  not  adducing  that  title,  and  so  falls  under  the  demo- 
Ishing  ^ower  of  the  postscript  to  the  tract.  Well,  then,  does 
Apollos,  an  elder  at  the  least,  remain  stationary  at  Corinth,  or  in 
any  other  patish,  church,  or  congregation?  No:  he  had  left 
Corinth  when  Paul  wrote  the  first  epistle  to  the  church  there ; 
he  had  gone  elseWhete  ;  yet  not  even  then  to  be  stationary,  for 
Paul  desired  to  bring  him  back  to  Corinth,,  and  he  himself  meant 
to  come  back  "  when  he  should  have  convenient  time."  (1  Cor. 
xvi.  12.)  Here  are  three  successive  points  occupied  in  the 
ministry  of  [elder]  Apollos,  down  to  the  year  59.  The  next  we 
read  of  him  is  in  the  year  65,  when  he  was  on  a  "journey  "  or 
voyage,  from  some  place  not  mentioned,  to  Crete,  and  was  to 
proceed  on  from  Crete  to  (probably)  Nicopolis**  Similar 
migrations  could  be  traced  in  the  ministry  of  various  other  per- 
sons named  in  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles ;  as  Erastus,  Tychicus, 
Trophimus,  Crescens,  Sopater,  &c.,  &c. ;  and,  provided,  the 
reviewer  will  allow  that  they  were  elders  at  the  least,  which 
"  will  scarcely  be  questioned,"  we  suppose,  of  the  most  of  them, 
and  will  not  put  in  the  plea  that  they  were  evangelists,  which  is 
precluded  by  his  new  position,  then  there  will  be  so  many  more 
cases  in  proof,  that  elders  were  as  little  fixed  in  one  station  as 
were  Timothy  and  Titus.  At  all  events,  we  have  the  case  of 
Apollos  to  this  effect.  And  the  result  is  this  alternative — iC 
Timothy  and  Titus  had  only  temporary  superior  functions, 
because  they  exercised  them  in  more  than  one  place,  the  elders 
had  only  a  temporary  function  for  the  same  reason ;  and  then 
we  have  no  ministry  left :  if,  however,  the  functions  of  the  elders 
were  permanent,  though  they  moved  from  place  to  place,  the 
superior  functions  of  Timothy  and  Titus  were  also  permanent, 
in  spite  of  this  same  objection ;  and  thus  we  have  Episcopacy  a 
permanent  institution  in  the  Church. 

Our  deepest  thanks,  therefore,  are  due  to  the  reviewer,  for 
co-operating  with  the  tract  in  brushing  away  this  rubbish  of  the 
parity  argument — that  portion  of  it  which  is  made  out  of  the 
name  evangelist — and  resting  the  discussion  on  the  mere  fads  of 
the  case.  This  is,  indeed,  a  happy  agreement — a  real  advance 
toward  settling  the  controversy  between  Episcopalians  and 
Presbyterians ;  for  the  latter  will  scarcely  take  the  ground  of  no 
ministry ;  and,  if  they  do  not,  the  only  alternative  is  Episco- 
pacy^ as  we  have  just  seen.  Let  any  candid  Presbyterian 
renounce  the  evasion  of  calling  Timothy  and  Titus  evangelists, 
and  he  will  have  a  straight-forward  and  unincumbered  argu- 
ment. The  apostles  were  "  superior  to  the  elders  in  ministerial 
power  and  rights."  Timothy  and  Titus  were  also  superior  to 
the  elders  in  those  respects.      The  "angel"  of  the  church  at 


*  Titus  ill.  12,  13.     The  reviewer  has  peculiar  ideas  of  the  time  of  Paul's  visit 
to  Nicopolis,  when  he  connects  this  passage  with  Gul.  ii.  1. 


108  ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW    OF 

Ephesus,  where  there  had  long  been  elders,  was  superior  to 
them  ;  for  he  alone  is  addressed  as  "  trying"  false  apostles,  and 
the  church  there  is  called  Ms  "  candlestick,"  not  theirs :  and 
this  case  brings  the  "  superior "  office  down  to  the  year  96. 
Further,  the  other  six  "angels"  must  have  resembled  the  one 
at  Ephesus.  Nor  is  there  a  particle  of  scriptural  evidence  that 
this  "superior"  office  was  to  cease  ;  not  a  particle,  though  those 
who  filled  it  may  not  then  have  been  fixed  in  one  station  or  dio- 
cese ;  as  also  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  the  office  of 
the  elders  was  to  cease,  though  they  too  were  not  always  fixed 
in  one  station  or  parish.  Nay,  the  fact  that  inspired  epistles 
were  written  to  Timothy,  Titus,  and  the  seven  "  angels,"  and 
made  part  of  the  New  Testament,  for  'permanent  use  in  the 
Church — epistles  which  recognise  the  right  to  ordain  and  inflict 
discipline  on  both  clergy  and  laity,  as  existing  in  the  "  superior" 
officers,  but  do  not  recognise  this  right  in  the  elders — this  fact 
alone  proves  the  "  superior"  office,  i.  e.  Episcopacy,  to  have 
been  intended  for  permanency.  Add  to  this,  that  Timothy  was 
to  "keep  this  commandment  [the  'charge'  given,  him  as  a 
'  superior '  officer  in  the  church]  till  the  appearing  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  ;"  which  implies  that  there  were  to  he  such  officers 
as  Timothy,  to  keep  the  same  "  charge,"  till  Christ  should 
appear— till  the  end  of  the  world.  Let  any  candid  Presbyterian 
examine  this  train  of  proof,  particularly  as  stated  more  fully  in 
the  tract,  leaving  out  of  the  question,  as  the  reviewer  does  most 
creditably,  the  evasion  concerning  "  evangelists,"  and  he  will 
wish,  at  least,  to  be  an  Episcopalian. 

We  have  finished  the  main  discussion  we  proposed.  We  have 
defended,  and  we  hope  to  purpose,  the  portion  of  the  tract 
chiefly  assailed  by  the  reviewer.  We  have  shown  that  the  only 
link  supposed  to  be  weak,  the  grand  link,  "the  point,  on  the 
making  out  of  which  depends  the  stupendous  fabric  of  Episco- 
pacy," the  "  corner-stone,  on  which  rest  the  claims  of  bishops;" 
we  have  shown  that  this  now  very  distinguished  link  in  the 
chain  of  the  tract's  inductive  proof  of  Episcopacy,  is  firm  as 
steel.  This  done,  all  the  work  incumbent  on  us  is  performed. 
There  is  no  more  necessity  for  coping  with  the  common  and 
diff"usive  arguments  against  us,  which  may  appear  subsequently 
to  the  tract,  than  there  was  for  it  to  notice  all  arguments  of  this 
kind  that  had  appeared  before.  No  one,  we  believe,  has  blamed 
the  tract  for  pushing  on  its  train  of  inductive  reasoning,  without 
regarding  these  interminable  discussions  ;  and  no  one  can  blame 
us,  if  we  now  say  to  the  reader,  "  Go  to  the  tract  itself,  read  it 
carefully  and  with  impartiality,  and  then  decide,  before  God 
and  your  own  conscience,  whether  it  does  not  prove  Episcopacy 
from  Scripture."  He  who  will  do  it  this  justice,  will  want  no 
other  arguments  for  that  ministry,  and  will  fear  none  against  it. 
Our  duly  therefore  is  sufficiently  discharged. 

But  rather  than  be  uncivil  to  one  whom  we  suspect  to  be  a 
new  comer  into  this  field  of  controversy,  we  will  extend  our 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  109 

article,  and  notice  some  of  his  other  remarks,  more  especially 
those  in  which  he  has  somewhat  of  novelty,  or  differs  from  the 
most  of  his  predecessors. 

He  says  that  the  apostles  were  ordained,  as  such,  early  in  our 
Lord's  ministry.  He  regards  the  words  addressed  to  them,  after 
the  resurrection,  as  recorded  by  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  "  Go 
ye  into  all  the  world,"  &c.,  as  but  "  instructions,"  not  as  per- 
taining to  a  fresh  ordination  to  a  higher  office.  But  he  omits 
entirely  the  record  of  John,  relating  to  that  subsequent  period. 
"As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you  ....  receive 
ye  the  Holy  Ghost  :  whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are 
remitted  unto  them,  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are 
retained."  This  looks  very  like  the  substance  of  an  ordination 
— the  eleven  are  "  sent ; "  they  receive  the  "  Holy  Ghost,"  in  the 
ecclesiastical  sense,  we  presume,  just  as  the  elders  of  Ephesus 
were  "  made  overseers  [presbyter-bishop^^]  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ;" 
and  they  are  told  that  they  have  the  power  of  absolving  true 
penitents,  the  nature  of  which  power  in  the  clergy  is  foreign  to 
our  present  discussion.  Are  we  not  right  in  thinking  that  an 
ordination  is  here  %  Would  the  reviewer,  having  asserted  the 
previous  ordination  of  the  apostles,  would  he,  or  would  he  not, 
if  this  passage  had  occurred  to  him,  have  seen  a  second  ordina- 
tion in  it?  If  he  had,  he  would  have  seen  that  which  is 
fatal  to  the  rule  of  parity,  that  there  is  but  one  order  in  the 
ministry. 

The  reviewer  asks  for  explicit  proof  that  Paul  or  the  twelve 
were  invested  with  superiority  of  office;  we  might  ask  him,  in 
return,  for  explicit  proof  of  their  investment  with  the  power  of 
ordaining.  He  infers  their  right  to  ordain  from  the  facts  of 
Scripture,  and  we  also  infer  their  superiority  of  office  from  the 
same  kind  of  evidence.  Both  inferences  are  unavoidable.  [The 
right  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  individually,  to  ordain,  is  recorded  3 
that  they  did  ordain  is  therefore  justly  presumed.] 

The  reviewer,  in  order  to  show  what  ke  thinks  was  the  point 
in  which  the  apostles  excelled  the  elders  in  the  matter  in  ques- 
tion, dwells  largely  on  the  fact  that  they  were  special  witnesses 
of  our  Lord's  resurrection  ;  and  with  the  help  of  Capital  and 
Italic  letters,  he  has  certainly  made  a  showy  argument.  But 
nobody  denies  that  they  were  the  special  witnesses,  or  that  they 
were  thus  distinguished  from  the  elders,  as  well  as  from  others 
called  apostles  ;  the  tract  gave  due  attention  to  both  these  parti- 
culars. The  point  is,  was  this  distinction  the  one  that  led  to  the 
expression  "  apostles  and  elders?"  Surely  not.  Among  those 
apostles  was  Barnabas,  and  perhaps  Silas,  (Acts  xiv.  14 ;  xv.  2, 
4,  22 ;  1  Thess.  i.  1 ;  ii.  6,)  neither  of  whom  was  a  special  wit- 
ness of  the  resurrection.  Besides :  the  expressions,  "  apostles 
and  elders,"  •'  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren,"  are  used  with 
immediate  reference  to  the  council  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  reviewer 
is  more  acute  than  we  pretend  to  be,  if  he  can  say  why,  in  a 
council  acting  on  questions  concerning  '•  idols,  blood,  things 
10 


IIQ  ANSWER  TO   A  REVIEW  OP 

Strangled,  and  licentiousness,"  the  special  witnesses  of  the  resur- 
rection should,  as  such,  have  peculiar  authority.  We  really 
thiniv  the  tract  argues  with  more  consistency,  when  it  says  that 
the  apostles  were  ministerially  above  the  elders.  [For  the  "  pro- 
bability "  that  there  was  a  third  James,  see  Hammond.] 

On  the  point  of  the  Apostleship  of  Timothy,  the  reviewer 
thinks  he  was  not  included  in  the  expression,  "  We '.  .  .  .  the 
apostles  of  Christ,"  in  1  Thess.  ii.,  which  epistle  begins,  "  Paul, 
and  Silvanus,  [Silas,]  and  Timotheus,  unto  the  church  of  the 
Thessalonians "—Why ?— Because  it  is  said  just  before,  "We 
had  suffered,  and  were  shamefully  entreated  at  Philippi,"  and 
Timothy,  he  asserts,  was  not  at  Philippi  at  the  time  these 
severities  were  endured.  Now,  we  argue  these  passages  the 
other  way ;  we  think  they,  of  themselves,  prove  that  Timothy 
was  at  Philippi,  and  "  suffered,  and  was  shamefully  entreated," 
though  he  was  not  beaten  and  put  in  prison,  as  Paul  and  Silas 
were.  We  turn  also  to  the  history  in  the  Acts,  (xvi.,  xvii.,) 
where  we  find  that  before  going  to  Philippi,  "  Paul  would  have 
Timothy  to  go  forth  with  him;"  and  after  leaving  Philippi, 
Timothy  was  with  him  at  Berea,  without  a  word  or  a  hint  that 
he  had  left  Paul,  or  returned  to  him  in  the  meantime.  The  evi- 
dence is  all  on  our  side,  and  connecting  that  in  the  epistle  with 
that  in  the  Acts,  it  is  conclusive. 

The  reviewer  says,  "  We  would  respectfully  ask  the  author  of 
this  tract,  where  he  finds  an  intimation  of  the  existence  of  an 
order  of '  clergy  at  large,''  in  these  churches,"  the  seven  churches 
in  Asia.  We  "  respectfully  "  answer,  that  he  has  not  said  one 
word  of  "  an  order  of  clergy  at  large,"  but  has  only  spoken  of 
the  "clergy  at  large"  in  those  churches,  an  expression  which 
we  are  "  amazed  "  to  see  misunderstood.  His  remark  is — "  Ob- 
serve the  emphatic  use  of  the  singular  number  in  the  address  to 
each  of  the  angels ;  '  I  know  thy  works,'  is  the  clear  and  strong 
language  directed  to  them  all  successively,  implying  the  respon- 
sibility, not  of  a  church  at  large,  or  of  its  clergy  at  large,  but  of 
the  head  or  governor  individually."  The  reviewer  is  first,  we 
believe,  in  imagining  an  "  order  of  clergy  at  large,"  though  he 
does  not  believe  in  his  own  imagination.  And  now,  we  would 
"  respectfully  ask  "  in  return,  Why  does  the  reviewer  "  lay  oitt 
of  view  the  case  of  the  '  elders  at  Ephesus,'  "  when  considering 
the  case  of  the  "angel"  at  Ephesus?  Were  there  no  pastoral 
elders  [presbyter-bishops]  in  that  church,  in  the  year  96,  though 
Timothy  had  been  there  so  long  previously,  thirty  years  or 
more,  "  intrusted  with  the  right  of  ordination  ! ! "  If  there  were 
such  elders  there  in  that  year,  96,  as  there  certainly  was  also  an 
"  angel,"  then  our  Lord's  directing  an  epistle  concerning  the 
state  of  the  church,  and  the  trying  of  false  apostles,  to  the 
"  angel "  individually,  and  not  to  the  elders  at  large,  or  to  the 
"  clergy  at  large,"  i.  e.  including  the  angel  with  the  rest,  is  a 
good  argument  for  Episcopacy.  The  alternative  thus  reached, 
is,  either  Timothy  committed  a  much  grosser  oversight  than 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY  SCRIPTURE.  Ill 

will  be  ascribed  to  him,  in  not  ordaining  pastoral  elders  in  that 
city,  or  the  reviewer  has  committed  an  oversight  of  some  mag- 
nitude, in  "  laying  out  of  view  "  those  elders,  in  his  argument 
upon  the  case  of  the  seven  churches. 

We  frank^  acknowledge  that  we  do  not  understand  what  the 
reviewer  means  (p.  79)  in  recognising  as  a  question,  respeotmg 
the  elders  at  Ephesus,  mentioned  in  Acts  xx.,  "  whether  they 
were  ruling-  elders,  or  presbyters,  ordained  to  preach  as  well  as 
to  rule."  They  are  there  called  "  overseers "  or  bishops ;  we 
regard  such  persons  as  presbyter-bishops,  the  second  order, 
and  Presbyterians  give  the  name  bishop  to  their  only  order  of 
clergy  proper.  If  ruling  elders  are  bishops  also,  then  they  have 
two  orders  of  bishops,  which  destroys  parity. 

Equally  above  our  comprehension  is  it,  that  the  reviewer,  after 
thus  recognising  "  ruling  elders,"  should  say  in  the  next  para- 
graph but  one,  "  There  are  but  two  orders  of  ministers  spoken 
of,  or  alluded  to,  in  the  epistles  [to  Timothy,]  bishops  and 
deacons."  Are  not  ruling  elders  "spoken  of"  in  those  epistles, 
according  to  Presbyterian  interpretation  ?  If  Presbyterian  dea- 
cons are  "  ministers,"  are  not  Presbyterian  ruling  elders,  who  rank 
above  them,  "  ministers  "  also  ?  Here  again  we  are  sadly  in  the 
dark.  If  the  reviewer  disallows  the  office  of  a  ruling  elder,  dis- 
allowed also  by  his  opponent,  why  recognise  it  in  his  argument? 
and  why  say  that  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  full  as  they  are  of 
"  bishop,  presbyters  and  deacons,"  seem  to  [his]  eyes  to  be  a 
plain  straight-forward  account  of  the  existence  of  Presbyterian- 
ism  in  his  time?"  If  he  allows  that  office,  why  intimate  that  it 
is  not  part  of  the  "  ministry  "  of  his  denomination,  while  that  of 
a  Presbyterian  deacon  is  ? 

The  reviewer  says  that  if  our  bishops,  claiming  to  be  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles,  were  to  assume  the  name  "  apostles," 
Episcopacy  would  soon  be  "  shorn  of  its  beams."  Very  likely. 
They  have  lost  that  name  since  the  first  century  :  those  of  the 
present  day  are  not  responsible  for  the  change  :  yet  it  no  doubt 
was  wisely  made.  Let  us  try  the  converse  of  the  proposition. 
Presbyterian  ministers  of  the  thorough  sort  claim  likewise  to 
be  successors  of  the  apostles ;  suppose  then  that  they  were  to 
assume  that  name,  what  would  become  of  the  "  beams "  of 
Presbyterianism?  Again,  the  reviewer  favors  the  idea  that  the 
"^  angels^  were  pastors  of  the  churches,  presbyters  on  a  parity 
with  each  other;"  suppose  then  Presbyterian  pastors  were  to 
assume  the  name  of  "  angels,"  the  Angel  of  the  church  in  Arch- 
street,  the  Angel  of  the  church  in  Pine-street,  the  Angel  of  the 
church  in  Washington-square,  would  the  "beams"  of  their 
churches  be  less  in  jeopardy  than  those  of  our  church  would  be 
from  the  titles,  the  Apostle  of  the  church  in  Pennsylvania,  the 
Apostle  of  the  church  in  Virginia,  the  Apostle  of  the  church  in 
Tennessee? 

The  reviewer  thinks  that  as  presbyters  lay  on  hands  with  the 
bishop  when  a  presbyter  is  ordained,  "  it  is  in  fact,  a  Presbyte- 


112  ANSWER  TO   A    REVIEW   OP 

rian  ordination."  We  think  otherwise.  When  Presbyterians 
ordain,  the  theory  is,  so  we  understand  their  writers,*  that  the 
authority  comes  from  that  one  of  their  presbyters  who  presides 
on  the  occasion,  the  others  being  present  to  express  the  consent 
of  the  Church,  in  other  words,  as  a  canonical  or  church  regula- 
tion lo  prevent  any  one  man  from  performing  so  important  an 
act  by  himself  alone.  This  is  Presbyterian  ordination  ;  the 
authority  flows,  not  from  a  presbytery,  but  from  a  Presbyterian 
'presbyter.  So  precisely  in  the  case  of  our  ordinations.  The 
authority  flows  from  the  bishop ;  the  presbyters  lay  on  hands 
to  denote  the  consent  of  the  Church,  to  show  that  the  bishop 
acts  canonically,  and  not  according  to  the  mere  impulse  of  his 
individual  will.  And  this  is  Episcopal  ordination,  because  the 
act  derives  its  virtue  from  the  bishop.  Ordination  by  one  pres- 
byter would  be  valid  among  Presbyterians,  and  the  ordination 
of  a  priest  by  the  bishop  alone  would  be  valid  among  Episcopa- 
lians ;  but  neither  would  accord  with  church  regulations. 

One  word  more  concerning  the  "  burden  of  proof,"  as  con- 
trasted with  the  "  presumptive  argument."  The  tract  claimed 
no  presumption  in  its  favor,  in  seeking  for  the  scriptural  proofs 
of  Episcopacy.  We  do — a  presumption  founded  on  common 
sense,  as  indicated  by  common  practice.  Set  aside  parity  and 
Episcopacy,  and  then  look  at  other  systems  of  office,  both  reli- 
gious and  civil,  and  you  find  several  grades  of  officers.  In  the 
Patriarchal  Church  there  was  the  distinction  of  "high-priest" 
and  "  priest."  (Heb.  v.  10 ;  vi.  20.)  In  the  Jewish  Church,  (com- 
mon sense  being  in  this  case  unquestionably  divinely  approved,) 
there  were  the  high-priest,  priests,  and  Levites.  Among  Pagans 
and  Mahommedans  there  are  various  grades  in  the  office  deemed 
sacred.  Civil  governments  have  usually  governors,  a  president, 
princes,  a  king,  an  emperor,  &c.,  as  the  heads  of  the  general,  or 
state,  or  provincial  magistracies.  In  armies  and  navies  there  is 
always  a  chief.  If  the  reviewer  should  claim  exceptions,  we 
reply  they  are  exceptions  only,  and  very  few  in  number.  The 
general  rule  is  with  us.  That  general  rule  next  to  universal 
is,  that  among  officers  there  is  a  difference  of  power,  of  rights, 
of  rank,  of  grade,  call  it  what  you  will.  And  this  general  rule 
gives  a  presumption  that  such  will  also  be  the  case  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  We  go  to  Scripture  then  with  the  presumptive 
argument  fully  against  parity.  If  we  should  find  in  Scripture 
neither  imparity  nor  parity,  still  common  sense  decides  for  the 
former.  If  we  find  the  tone  of  Scripture  doubtful  on  this  point, 
imparity  has  the  advantage,  common  sense  turning  the  scale. 
If  we  find  there  intimations,  less  than  positive  injunctions,  in 
favor  of  imparity,  common  sense,  besides  the  respect  due  to 
Scripture,  decides  for  our  interpretation  of  them.  And  if  any 
thing  in  Scripture  is  supposed  to  prove  or  to  justify  parity,  it 
must  be  very  explicit  to  overturn  the  suggestion  of  common 

*  See  Form  of  Government,  chap.  14,  sect.  12. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  113 

sense.    The  "presumptive  argument,"  then,  is  clearly  with  us, 
and  the  "  burden  of  proof"  lies  on  parity. 

We  have  exceeded  the  limits  to  which  we  intended  to  confine 
ourselves — and  though  there  are  some  other  points  in  the  review 
which  we  are  tempted  to  notice,  we  must  be  content  with 
extracting  part  of  its  truly  elegant  and  courteous  tribute  to  the 
Episcopal  Church. 

"  We  remember  that  it  was  under  the  Episcopacy  that  the 
Church  in  England  took  its  firm  stand  against  the  Papacy ;  and 
that  this  was  its  form  when  Zion  rose  to  light  and  splendor  from 
the  dark  night  of  ages.  We  remember  Cranmer,  —  Cranmer 
first,  in  many  respects,  among  the  reformers ;  that  it  was  by  his 
steady  and  unerring  hand,  that,  under  God,  the  pure  Church  of 
the  Saviour  was  conducted  through  the  agitating  and  distressing 
times  of  Henry  VIII.  We  remember  that  God  watched  over 
that  wonderful  man ;  that  he  gave  this  distinguished  prelate 
access  to  the  heart  of  one  of  the  most  capricious,  cruel,  inexora- 
ble, blood-thirsty,  and  licei^tious  monarchs  that  has  disgraced 
the  world  ;  that  God,  for  the  sake  of  Cranmer,  and  his  Church, 
conducted  Henry,  as  '  by  a  hook  in  the  nose,'  and  made  him 
faithful  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  when  faithful  to  none 
else." 

"  She  [the  Episcopal  Church]  is  consolidated ;  well  mar- 
shalled; under  an  efficient  system  of  lawsj  and  pre-eminently 
fitted  for  powerful  action  in  the  field  of  Christian  warfare.  We 
desire  to  see  her  what  the  Macedonian  phalanx  was  in  the  ancient 
army ;  with  her  dense,  solid  organization,  with  her  unity  of 
move.ment,  with  her  power  of  maintaining  the  position  which 
she  takes;  and  with  her  eminent  ability  to  advance  the  cause  of 
sacred  learning,  and  the  love  of  order  and  of  law,  attending  or 
leading  all  other  churches  in  the  conquests  of  redemption  in 
an  alienated  world.  We  should  even  rejoice  to  see  her  who 
was  first  in  the  field,  at  the  Reformation  in  England,  first,  also, 
in  the  field,  when  the  Son  of  God  shall  come  to  take  lo  himself 
his  great  power,"  &c. 

A  truly  splendid  eulogium  on  our  Church, — and  one  which 
does  credit  to  the  candor,  the  benevolence,  the  superiority  to 
prejudice,  of  the  elevated  mind  that  conceived  it.  and  the 
honorable  frankness  which  gave  it  public  utterance.  With  the 
feelings  of  such  a  heart  as  that  of  the  author  of  these  paragraphs, 
we  have,  we  can  have,  no  controversy  whatever — we  rather 
desire  to  copy  them  more  perfectly  ourselves,  and  be  taught 
more  of  the  grand  duty  of  love  by  an  opponent  who  so  nobly 
and  so  delightfully  exemplifies  it.  We  v/ould  only  ask — If 
Episcopacy  is  to  be  found  the  "first"  in  the  Church,  at  the 
second  advent  of  the  Son  of  Man,  is  it  probable  that  he  left  no 
Episcopacy  in  the  Church,  when  his  first  advent  terminated. 

H.  U.  O. 

10* 


ESSAY, 

On  the  QdestioNj  —  When  did  Paul  place  Timothy  over  the 
Church  at  Ephesus  7 


The  date  of  this  event  is  of  some  interest  to  those  who 
examine  the  controversy  between  Episcopacy  and  parity.  It 
is  very  far,  however,  from  being  essential  to  the  Episcopal 
cause,  as  a  few  remarks  will  show.  Parity  alleges,  —  such  at 
least  is  its  usual  and  most  advantageous  view  of  the  case, — that 
Timothy  was  placed  at  Ephesus  before  there  were  any  clergy 
there,  and  that  his  functions  were  to  ordain  a  supply  of  them, 
and  settle  the  new  church.  To  this  Episcopacy  replies,  that, 
even  granting  there  were  no  clergy  there  at  the  date  assumed, 
it  is  evident,  from  the  epistles  to  Timothy,  that  he  individually 
had  supreme  power,  both  in  governing  and  ordain  ng,  and 
that  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  anipreme  power  of  that  in- 
dividual chief  officer  passed  afterward  to  the  body  of  clergy, 
or  was  in  any  respect  modified  or  restricted  j  and  that  besides 
this  want  of  evidence  that  parity  took  the  place  of  this  arrange- 
ment equivalent  to  Episcopacy,  the  second  epistle  affords  positive 
proof  that  it  did  not,  since  in  that  epistle,  when  there  certainly 
were  clergy  at  Ephesus,  Timothy  is  still  addressed  individually, 
and  as  the  head  of  its  church.  Episcopacy  further  declares, 
that  it  is  not  to  be  taken  for  granted  that  there  were  no  clergy 
at  Ephesus,  at  even  the  earliest  date  of  Timothy's  being  placed 
there  by  St.  Paul ;  and  moreover,  that  the  proper  date  of  this 
event  is  later,  when  there  were  at  that  place  the  elders  addressed 
by  Paul,  (in  Acts  xx.,)  with  others  to  keep  up  or  increase  their 
number.  And  an  irrefutable  argument  for  Episcopacy  is  drawn 
from  comparing  that  address  to  the  Ephesian  elders,  which  con- 
tains not  a  hint  of  their  right  to  ordain  and  exercise  clerical  dis- 
cipline, with  the  epistles  to  Timothy  individually,  as  connected 
with  the  same  church,  which  recognise  those  rights  as  existing 
in  him  in  all  fulness  and  perfection. 

It  will  thus  be  seen,  that  the  question  concerning  the  proper 
date  of  the  placing  of  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  though  not  vital  in 
this  controversy,  is  yet  one  of  much  interest. 

Three  dates  of  this  event  have  been  suggested,  and,  as  far  as 
the  present  writer's  information  extends,  three  only.  St.  Paul 
writes,  "I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I  went 
into  Macedonia,"  (1  Tim.  i.  3;)  of  course  the  date  to  be  assigned 
must  be  consistent  with  some  journey  of  that  apostle  into  Mace- 
donia. Of  Paul's  journeys  into  that  region,  after  the  founding  of 
a  church  at  EJphesus,  there  were  three.  The  first  was  after  a 
riot  had  driven  him  from  that  city.*    The  second  was  soon  after, 

♦  Acts  XX.  1.    This  journey  had  been  intended  by  Paul,  (1  Cor.  xvi.  5,  6,)  but  the 
riot  hastened  his  departure. 
(  114) 


TIMOTHY   AT   EPHE3DS.  115 

when  having  been  in  Greece,  he  returned  to  Syria  circuitously, 
through  Macedonia,  on  account  of  the  machinations  of  the  Jews, 
(Acts  XX.  3.)  The  third  was  still  later,  after  his  first  imprison- 
inent  in  Rome,  when  he  again  visited  the  eastern  churches,  as 
will  be  shown  under  the  proper  head  of  this  essay.  We  shall 
borrow  a  portion  of  the  following  remarks  from  Macknight's 
preface  to  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  from  several  pieces 
entitled  "  Timothy  at  Ephesus,"  in  the  Church  Register,  for 
March  and  April,  1827. 

1.  Presbyterian  controvertists  generally,  as  also  many  other 
writers  of  high  authority,  favor  the  opinion,  that  Paul  placed 
Timothy  at  Ephesus  when  he  fled  from  that  city,  and  went  into 
Macedonia,  after  the  riot  mentioned  in  •Acts  xix.  23-41.  And 
they  allege,  in  behalf  of  parity,  that  there  were  then  no  clergy 
in  the  Ephesian  church,  and  that  Timothy  was  to  ordain  a  sup- 
ply of  them,  in  his  supposed  temporary  relation  to  that  church 
as  an  evangelist. 

As  to  Timothy's  having  had  supreme  power  in  Ephesus,  or 
any  where  else,  merely  as  an  evangelist,  a  full  refutation  of  that 
opinion  will  be  found  in  the  postscript  to  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by 
Scripture,"  contained  in  the  Protestant  Episcopalian  for  Decem- 
ber, 1830  ;  that  essay  is  now  circulating  as  a  tract. 

As  to  there  having  been  no  clergy  in  Ephesus  when  Paul  fled 
thence,  after  the  "  uproar,"  into  Macedonia,  it  is  an  assertion 
infinitely  improbable.  He  had  now  been  there  "  three  years." 
He  had  previously  made  a  short  stay  in  that  city  ;  after  which, 
Apollos  "  taught  diligently  there  the  things  of  the  Lord,"  having 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  to  help  him,  and  so  advanced  the  great 
cause,  that  some  were  called  "  the  brethren."  (Acts  xviii.  19:-28.) 
When  Paul  reached  them  again,  some  who  had  received  only 
John's  Iraptism,  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  with  a  will- 
ingness which  showed  that  Christianity  had  taken  root  among 
them,  (Acts  xix.  1-5.)  After  three  months,  Paul  "  separated  the 
disciples"  from  the  synagogue,  ( Acts  xix.  9 :)  and  when  Jewish  con- 
verts would  bear  any  thing  like  such  a  separation,  they  certainly 
were  past  the  most  difficult  part  of  their  noviciate,  and  some  of 
them  either  were,  or  could  soon  be,  prepared  for  the  ministry. 
Shall  we  believe,  then,  that  Paul  would  leave  this  Christian 
church,  now  fully  severed  from  the  synagogue,  for  two  years, 
or  nearly  three,  without  providing  It  ministers,  when  he  knew 
the  dangers  to  which  he  was  constantly  exposed  ?  Shall  we 
believe  that,  when  "  the  word  of  God  had  mightily  grown  and 
prevailed"  in  that  city,  he  would  send  away  Timothy  and  Eras- 
tus,  (Acts  xix.  22.)  without  having  ordained  others,  or  else  doing 
it  without  delay?  The  supposition  Is  not  credible.  Nor  is  it 
countenanced  by  other  parts  of  the  holy  record :  for  that  apostle 
and  Barnabas  had  ordained  elders,  in  other  Asiatic  cities.  In  much 
less  than  two  years,  (Acts  xlv.  23.)  Long  before  Paul  fled  from 
Ephesus,  clergymen  must  have  been  appointed  for  that  church; 
it  not,  he  made  less  provision  for  the  numerous  converts  in  that 


116  TIMOTHY  AT  EPHESUS. 

most  important  city,  than  was  made  for  fewer  converts  in  cities 
less  important ;  which  is  a  supposition  infinitely  improbable. 

As  to  there  having  been  no  clergy  in  Ephesus  when  Timothy 
was  placed  there,  be  the  date  of  that  occurrence  early  or  late, 
we  know  to  the  contrary.  St.  Paul  writes  to  him  that  he  was 
placed  there,  "  that  he  might  charge  some  that  they  teach  no 
other  doctrine,"  (ITim.  i.  3;)  which  implies  that  there  were 
already  teachers  in  that  church,  "  some"  of  whom  inculcated 
error.  It  follows,  that  many  authorized  teachers,  or  ordained 
clergymen,  were  in  Ephesus  when  Timothy  was  directed  to  as- 
sume the  superintendence  of  that  body  of  Christians.  As  then 
these  clergymen  required  such  a  superintendent  among  them, 
both  to  govern  them,  and  to  ordain  others,  it  is  rightly  concluded 
that  they  had  not  within  themselves  the  power  of  either  ordina- 
tion or  clerical  discipline.  And  this  destroys  the  claim  of  parity, 
and  establishes  that  of  Episcopacy. 

In  this  view,  it  may  seem  unnecessary  to  discuss  the  question, 
When  was  Timothy  placed  at  Ephesus  as  the  chief  officer  of  its 
church  ?  But,  as  any  one  truth  strengthens  any  other  related 
to  it,  this  point  will  now  be  considered. 

We  assert  that  Timothy  was  not  placed  over  the  church  at 
Ephesus  when  Paul  fled  thence  to  Macedonia,  after  the  riot. 
Here  let  the  point  of  the  argument  be  distinctly  noticed.  Paul 
says,  "  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I  went 
into  Macedonia."  Of  course  Timothy  must  have  been  there,  or 
had  his  residence  there  at  the  time  of  this  request,  or  else  been 
so  connected  with  that  church  as  that  it  was  his  ecclesiastical 
home ;  and  his  residence  or  ecclesiastical  home  was  also  to  be 
therefor  a  considerable  period  afterward,  or  rather  permanently, 
since  there  is  no  hint  any  where  in  Scripture,  that  his  functions 
in  Ephesus,  when  placed  over  that  church,  would  at  any  time 
cease. 

Now,  Timothy  was  7iot  at  Ephesus  when  Paul  fled,  after  the 
riot,  into  Macedonia.  He  and  Erastus  had  been  sent  away  some 
time  previously  to  Macedonia,  and  Timothy  also  to  Corinth, 
(Acts  xix.  22 ;  1  Cor.  iv.  17 ;  xvi.  10 ;)  and  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  returned  before  the  Apostle  fled  from  Ephesus.*  Nay, 
there  is  evidence  of  the  contrary,  as  will  readily  appear.  Thus: 
Paul  wrote  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  from  Ephesus, 
and  in  it  Timothy  is  spoken  of  as  then  on  his  mission  [to  Mace- 
donia first,  and  then]  to  Corinth  ;  he  probably  took  this  epistle, 
(1  Cor.  iv.  17;  xvi.  8,  10.)  The  second  epistle  was  written  after 
the  riot  and  Paul's  flight,  which  are  there  mentioned,  (2  Cor. 
i.  8-10.)  In  the  first  epistle,  several  abuses  among  the  Corinth- 
ians are  censured ;  and  Paul  would  have  heard  from  Timothy 
whether  his  censures  were  effectual,  had  he  returned  to  the 


*  St.  Paul  expected  Timothy  to  "come  unto  him"  from  Corinth,  but  where,  does 
not  appear  ;  it  may  have  been  in  Macedonia,  as  probably  as  in  Ephesus.  (I  Cor. 
xvi.  5,  8,  10,  11.) 


TIMOTHY   AT   EPHESUS.  117 

Apostle  while  yet  at  Ephesus ;  instead  of  which  lie  obtains  the 
first  Intelligence,  not  from  Timothy,  but  from  Titus,  after  reach- 
ing Macedonia.  (2  Cor.  ii.  13  ;  vii.  6-16.)  Titus,  it  appears,  was 
returning  from  Corinth  before  Timothy,  who  also  left  there  soon 
afterward,  in  time  to  meet  Paul  in  Macedonia,  where  the  two 
latter  united  in  the  second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  (2  Cor.  i.  1.) 
Let  us  notice  more  fully  the  above  particulars.  St.  Paul  flies 
from  Ephesus  to  Troas,  where  he  hoped  to  meet  Titus,  and  get 
the  intelligence  from  the  Corinthians  that  he  so  much  desired, 
(2  Cor.  ii.  12,  13;)  and  this  his  looking  for  Titus  only,  implies 
that  the  Apostle  scarcely  expected  that  Timothy,  who  certainly 
cannot  (without  the  clearest  proof)  be  supposed  to  have  aban- 
doned his  mission  to  Corinth,  had  yet  left  the  latter  place;  and 
this,  obviously,  further  implies  that  he  could  not,  at  the  date  of 
the  "uproar"  which  drove  away  Paul,  have  returned  thence  to 
Ephesus.  Paul  continues  his  journey  from  Troas  to  Macedonia, 
yet  still  has  no  tidings  from  the  Corinthians,  till  Titus  "comes" 
to  him,  and  "comforts"  his  "cast  down"  spirit  by  the  intel- 
ligence that  he  had  rectified  the  abuses  among  those  brethren. 
(2  Cor.  vii.  6,  &c.)  Not  once  does  Paul  refer  to  any  news  from 
them,  favorable  or  unfavorable,  brought  by  Timothy.  If  these 
facts  do  not  prove,  in  the  absence  of  all  intimations  whatever  to 
the  contrary,  that  Timothy  had  not  returned  to  Ephesus  when 
Paul  fled,  no  confidence  can  be  placed  in  the  strongest  circum- 
stantial evidence.  And  if  Timothy  was  not  there,  when  Paul 
then  "  went  into  Macedonia,"  it  could  not  be  said  that  Paul  then 
"  besought  him  to  cbide  there  still."  In  other  words,  it  was  not 
on  the  occasion  of  this  departure  of  the  Apostle  for  Macedonia 
that  Timothy  was  placed  over  the  church  at  Ephesus, 

Neither  was  Timothy  so  connected  with  Ephesus  at  that  time, 
as  to  make  it  his  ecclesiastical  home ;  for  his  principal  duties 
were  just  now  in  Macedonia  and  Corinth;  and  even  previously, 
his  clerical  connexion  had  rather  been  with  Paul  than  the  Ephe- 
sians.  (Acts  xix.  22.)  Nor  was  he  at  Ephesus  .for  some  time 
after;  for  he  was  with  Paul  awhile  in  Macedonia,  when  he  join- 
ed in  the  second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  still  with  him  in 
Greece,  from  a  port  of  which  region  he  and  others  sailed  to 
rejoin  that  apostle  at  Troas;  (Acts  xx.  1-5;)  and  as  Paul,  in 
thus  prosecuting  his  voyage  to  Jerusalem,  did  not  go  to  Ephe- 
sus, (Acts  XX.  16,  17,)  and  said  nothing  to  the  elders  of  that 
church  whom  he  met  at  Miletus,  of  Timothy's  being  then  left 
among  them,  we  conclude  with  commentators  in  general,  that 
the  latter  did  not  then  tarry  there,  but  went  onward  to  Jerusa- 
lem with  the  great  Apostle. 

2.  'I'he  next  opinion  is,  tliat  Timothy  was  placed  over  the 
Ephesian. church  at  a  period  some  months  later  than  the  riot, 
when  Paul,  being  prevented  by  the  Jews  from  sailing  directly 
from  Greece  to  Syria,  (as  we  have  just  seen.)  went  circuitously 
thither  through  Macedonia.  (Acts  xx.  3,  6.)  We  have  shown, 
however,  that  Timothy  was  not  in  Ephesus  at  this  time,  nor  so 


118  TIMOTHY  AT   EPHE8US. 

specially  connected  with  it  as  to  make  it  his  ecclesiastical  home ; 
of  course  Paul  could  not  with  propriety  say  to  him,  "I  besought 
thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus."  For  this  reason,  we  cannot 
allow  this  journey  of  Paul  into  Macedonia  to  have  been  the  date 
of  Timothy's  being  placed  over  the  Ephesian  church. 

Another  argument  of  great  force  precludes  the  supposition 
that  Timothy  was  placed  there  at  any  time  before  Paul  deliver- 
ed his  address  to  the  clergy  of  that  city,  as  stated  in  Acts  xx. ; 
and  this  argument  applies  to  both  the  present  theory  of  the  date 
in  question,  and  the  one  we  have  before  noticed.  In  that 
address  Paul  speaks  of  the  errors  and  raisleadings  of  false  teach- 
ers, as  yet  future ;  he  makes  no  complaint  of  them  as  t?ien 
existing  in  Ephesus;  but  says  ihey  "shall  arise,"  and  "shall 
enter  m."  (Acts  xx.  29,  30.)  But,  in  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy, 
he  desires  him  to  "charge  some  to  teach  no  other  doctrine," 
intimating  that  the  false  teachers  had,  at  the  date  of  that  epistle, 
begun  their  mischievous  proceedings;  he  enumerates  as  errors 
then  existing  there,  fables,  endless  genealogies,  swerving  from 
charity  and  faith  to  vain  jangling,  questions  and  strifes  of  words, 
perverse  disputings,  profane  and  vain  babblings,  and  oppositions 
of  science  falsely  so  called ;  he  also  names  Hymeneus  and 
Alexander,  whose  doctrines  had  been  so  hurtful,  that  he  had 
"  delivered  them  unto  Satan."  (1  Tim.  i.  3-6;  vi.  4,  5,  20 ;  i.  20.) 
Now,  besides  that  it  is  wholly  improbable  that  all  these  evils 
could  have  befallen  the  Ephesian  church  in  the  few  months 
that  elapsed  between  Paul's  flight  and  his  address  to  their  elders, 
it  is  impossible  that  so  much  false  teaching  could  have  existed 
there  at  the  very  time  he  told  the  elders  that  the  false  teachers 
were  yet  to  spring  up.  It  follows  unavoidably  that  the  station- 
ing of  Timothy  there  was  subsequent  to  the  address  of  St.  Paul 
to  the  elders  in  Acts  xx.,  and  indeed  that  there  must  have  been 
an  interval  of  some  duration,  to  allow  so  extensive  a  develop- 
ment of  error  and  delusion  among  the  Ephesian  clergy.  And 
hence,  we  again  assert,  that  as  both  Paul's  flight  into  Macedonia, 
and  his  going  thiiher  again  from  Greece,  were  previous  to  the 
address  referred  to,  neither  of  those  dates  can  be  allowed  for 
the  placing  of  Timothy  at  Ephesus.  To  the  present  writer,  this 
argument  appears  to  have  the  force  of  demonstration. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  if  this  second  date  could 
be  atlowed,  there  would  be  a  remarkable  proof  of  Episcopacy  in 
the  fact,  that  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy  and  the  address  to  the 
elders  would  both  have  issued  from  the  great  Apostle  at  the 
same  period,  the  one  assigning  Episcopal  duties  to  Timothy, 
the  other  enjoining  only  pastoral  duties  on  the  elders.  The 
Apostle  would  thus  have  deVivered^  simultaneously  the  records 
of  the  functions  of  each,  showing  that  the  one  was  superior,  and 
the  others  inferior  in  the  sacred  oifice.  But  as  the  evidence  is 
against  the  supposition  that  these  two  charges  were  delivered  at 
the  same  time,  this  striking  view  of  that  proof  of  Episcopacy 
cannot  be  maintained.    The  substance,  however,  of  that  proof 


TIMOTHY   AT   EPHESUS.  119 

is  fully  ours;  no  ingenuity  can  impair  the  scriptuial  demonstra- 
tion of  Episcopacy  founded  on  the  comparison  of  the  address  to 
the  elders  as  pastors,  with  the  epistles  to  Timothy  as  supreme 
officer  or  bishop. 

3.  A  third  date  for  the  connexion  of  Timothy  with  the  Ephe- 
sian  church  has  been  mentioned,  and  this  now  claims  our  atten- 
tion. We  assert  that  Timothy  was  in  Ephesus  some  years  after 
the  above  two  dates,  and  that  Paul  liicewise  "  went"  (or  "  was 
going,"  as  the  word  may  be  translated,)  into  Macedonia  after 
the  two  journeys  thither  already  referred  to.  After  that  apos- 
tle's first  imprisonment  in  Rome,  is  the  date  we  assign  as  the 
only  one  that  can  be  defended.  We  find  it  plainly  recorded, 
that  both  he  and  Timothy  were  again  at  that  later  period  in 
these  eastern  parts,  though  it  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Acts,  as 
that  book  ends  with  Paul's  first  detention  in  the  imperial  city. 

The  reader  will  see  in  the  following  proofs  that  Timothy  was 
certainly  in  Ephesus,  and  that  Paul  probably  "  went,"  and  cer- 
tainly "  was  going"  into  Macedonia  after  that  apostle  was  first 
in  Rome.  Timothy  was  with  him,  be  it  recollected,  in  the  latter 
city.  (Phil.  i.  1,  13.)  We  shall  first  adduce  the  evidence  of  their 
intention  to  go  eastward  from  Rome,  and  then  the  evidence  that 
they  did  so,  first  as  regards  St.  Paul,  and  then  as  regards 
Timothy. 

Paul  intended  to  visit  Philippi  in  Macedonia  after  leaving 
Rome.  He  wrote  to  the  Philippians  when  he  was  in  that  city, 
where  his  "bonds  in  Christ  were  manifest  in  all  the  palace,"  or 
"  Caesar's  court,"  as  in  the  margin.  He  assures  the  church  in 
Philippi,  that  he  "  trusted  in  the  Lord  that  he  would  come 
shortly"  to  them  ;  nay,  he  writes  more  strongly,  "  I  know  that 
I  shall  abide  and  continue  with  you  all  .  .  .  that  your  rejoicing 
may  be  more  abundant  ...  by  my  coming  to  you  again ;"  he 
seems  even  to  intimate  the  possibility  of  frequent  visits,  "  That 
whether  I  come  and  see  you,  or  else  be  absent."  (Phil.  i.  13 ; 
ii.  24;  i.  25-27.)  This  is  evidence  suflicient  that  Paul  designed 
going  into  Macedonia  when  he  should  leave  Rome. 

Paul  intended  to  visit  Philemon  after  his  release  from  Rome, 
and  even  ordered  a  "  lodging"  to  be  prepared  for  him  in  Colossej 
where  Philemon  resided.*  Colosse  was  in  Phrygia,  in  Asia  Minor, 
and  sufficiently  near  Ephesus.  Of  course,  it  was  Paul's  inten- 
tion to  visit  the  countries  on  that  side  the  ^gean  Sea,  and  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Ephesus,  after  leaving  Rome  ;  for  the  epistle  to 
Philemon  was  written  while  Paul  was  yet  a  prisoner  in  that 
city.  (See.  v.  10.) 

Paul  intended  to  visit  the  Hebrews  after  his  release  at  Rome. 
He  wrote  the  epistle  to  them  from  Italy,  and  says  expressly,  "  I 
will  see  you,"  (Heb.  xiii.  19,  23,  24.)    The  Hebrews  were  either 

♦  Philem.  22.  The  proof  that  Philemon  resided  in  Colosse  will  be  seen  by  com- 
paring Philem.  2,  with  Col.  iv.  17;  in  both  which  passages  Archippus  is  named  as 
a  minister  living  at  the  place  to  which  both  epistles  were  sent;  both  being  sent  at 
tlie  same  time  by  Onesimus.    (CoL  iv.  9  ;  Philem.  12.) 


120  TIMOTHY  AT   EPIIESCS. 

the  Jewish  converts  in  Judea,  or  the  Jewish  converts  at  lal'ge. 
If  those  in  Judea  are  meant,  he  promised  to  proceed  to  that 
country  after  leaving  Italy.  If  those  at  large  are  meant,  we  are 
secure  in  saying  there  were  vastly  more  of  them  east  of  Italy, 
than  in  any  other  direction;  and,  in  this  view,  he  promised  to 
visit,  after  his  release,  the  eastern  countries  of  the  Mediterranean ; 
and  there  were  so  many  new  churches,  including  Jewish  con- 
verts, on  both  sides  of  the  iEgean  Sea,  that  we  may  justly  regard 
his  promised  voyage  as  including  them  :  among  these  churches, 
those  at  Ephesus  and  Philippi  (in  Macedonia)  Vvcre  conspicuous. 

Paul  did  visit  Miletum  or  Miletus,  after  his  release  at  Rome; 
he  writes  to  Timothy  that  he  had  left  Trophimus  sick  at  that 
place.  (2  Tim.  iv.  20.)  There  was  a  Miletus  near  Ephesus, 
where  Paul  met  the  elders,  and  another  in  Crete.  (See  Calmet. 
Acts  XX.  17.)  If  the  former  be  here  meant,  then  Paul,  after  leav- 
ing Rome,  was  in  tlie  very  neigliborhood  of  Ephesus.  But  as,  at 
the  date  of  this  second  epistle,  Timothy  was  himself  in  Ephesus, 
and  Paul  now  again  in  Rome,  he  would  not  probably  write  to 
him  respecting  Trophimus  if  he  were  in  that  Miletus,  so  near 
Timothy's  residence;  and  it  therefore  is  more  justly  presumed 
that  the  Miletum  in  Crete  was  the  place  where  Trophimus  was 
left  sick.  If  this  latter  was  the  Miletum  intended,  then  Paul 
was  again  in  Crete  after  his  first  imprisonment,  for  the  date  of 
this  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  is  his  second  imprisonment  :* 
and  if  in  Crete,  he  was  among  the  eastern  churches,  and  sufS- 
ciently  near  the  iEgean  Sea  to  visit  its  coasts,  including  Ephesus 
and  Macedonia ;  the  latter  visit  he  had  almost  positively  promised 
the  Philippians,  as  was  shown  in  a  former  paragraph. 

Paul  did  visit  Corinth  after  leaving  Rome.  Besides  mention- 
ing to  Timoth}',  as  above  stated,  tiiat  he  had  left  Trophimus  at 
Miletum,  he  also  says,  in  the  same  verse,  "  Erastus  abode  at 
Corinth."  He  could  not  mean  that  he  had  remained  there  ever 
since  his  mission  to  that  city,  six  or  seven  years  before,  for 
Timothy  had  been  often  with  Paul  since  that  time,  and  would 
have  been  fully  informed  that  Erastus  had  continued  thus  sta- 
tionary. No  ;  Paul  connects  the  tarrying  of  Erastus  at  Corinth 
with  his  leaving  Trophimus  at  Miletum,  meaning  that  the  two 
incidents  had  occurred  at  the  same  period,  and  recently.  Hence 
Doddridge  remarks,  "It  seems  by  this  clause  tiiat  [Erastus]  was 
in  Paul's  company  when  he  parted  with  Timothy,  as  it  is  likely 
Trophimus  also  was.  And,  as  none  can  suppose  Paul  would 
have  mentioned  these  things  to  Timothy  in  this  connexion,  if 
they  had  happened  many  years  before,  (Acts  xix.  22,)  I  look 


*  2  Tim.  i.  8,  Ig,  17;  ii. ;  ir.  6,  16.  Paul  had  been  in  Crete  on  his  first  voyage  to 
Rome  as  a  prisoner.  (Acts  xxvii.  8.)  But  tliis  was  long  before  the  date  of  this 
epistle;  and  the  siclciiess  of  Trophlmns  is  mentioned  as  a  recent  occurrence.  Be- 
sides, Timothy  liad  been  with  Paul  in  Rome  since  that  landing  in  Crete,  and  would 
know  of  this  sickness,  had  it  tlion  occurred,  without  any  allusion  to  it  in  the  epistle. 
Of  course,  Trophimus  was  left  at  Miletum  afterward,  i.  e.  subsequently  to  Paul's 
dischai'ge  from  his  first  imprisonment  in  Rome  ;  Paul  l)eingthen  again  in  Crete. 


TIMOTHY   AT  EPHESUS.  121 

upon  this  as  a  very  material  argument  fo  prove  that  he  returned 
into  these  eastern  parts,  between  his  first  and  second  imprison- 
ment at  Rome ;  though  probably,  if  he  ever  saw  Ephesus  again, 
most  of  the  ministers  of  that  and  the  neighboring  places,  with 
whom  he  had  the  celebrated  interview  at  Miletus,  mentioned 
Acts  XX.,  were  either  dead  or  removed." 

Paul  did  visit  eastern  parts  after  his  first  imprisonment  at 
Rome.  In  Tit.  iii.  12,  we  read  that  he  had  determined  to  spend 
a  winter  at  Nicopolis.  There  were  several  cities  of  this  name ;  in 
Macedonia,  in  one  or  more  of  the  neighboring  provinces,  and  in 
Pontus  in  Asia  Minor;  it  matters  not,  at  present,  which  of  them 
is  here  meant.  When  then  was  Paul  in  Nicopolis,  or  so  near  it 
as  to  "  determine  there  to  winter?"  it  was  after  leaving  Titus  in 
Crete.  (Tit.  i.  5.)  Now,  the  first  we  know  of  Paul's  being  in 
Crete,  was  his  landing  there,  when  on  his  voyage  to  Rome  ;  then, 
however,  he  was  a  prisoner,  and  could  have  had  no  expectation 
of  wintering  in  Nicopolis.  It  must,  therefore,  have  been  after 
his  release  at  Rome,  that  he  left  Titus  in  Crete,  having  been 
again  in  that  island.  And  subsequently  to  this,  he  was  in  or 
near  the  Nicopolis  which  he  selected  for  his  winter  residence. 
This  brings  back  that  apostle  from  Rome  to  either  Macedonia  or 
Asia  Minor  ;  and  he  doubtless  revisited  both  these  regions. 

Paul  did  visit  Troas  after  his  first  imprisonment  in  Rome. 
He  desired  Timothy  to  bring  thence  his  cloak,  books  and  parch- 
ments. (2  Tim.  iv.  13.)  That  he  left  them  there  after  his  first 
visit  to  Rome,  is  exceedingly  probable ;  for  the  last  time  he  was 
at  Troas  before  being  a  prisoner,  was  in  A.  D.  60;  and  we  cannot 
suppose  he  would  leave  these  things  there  till  A.  D.  66,  when  he 
wrote  to  Timothy  to  bring  them ;  we  know  that,  while  a  prisoner, 
both  in  Cacsarea  and  Rome,  he  could  send  and  receive  mes- 
sengers freely.  (Acts  xxiv.  23 ;  Phil.  ii.  25;  iv.  18;  Eph.  vi.  21 ; 
Col.  iv.  7,  9,  10.)  If  to  this  probability  we  add  the  evidence 
already  adduced,  that  Paul  returned  from  Rome  to  the  east,  it 
will  appear  indisputable  that  he  was  at  that  period  in  Troas,  and 
left  there  the  things  mentioned.  Troas  was  near  Macedonia,  and 
on  the  same  coast  with  Ephesus. 

Let  us  now  recapitulate  the  evidence  of  Paul's  return  eastward 
from  Rome.  His  intention  was  to  visit  Philippi,  Colosse,  the 
Hebrews.  He  actually  was  at  Miletum,  at  Corinth,  at  or  near 
Nicopolis,  at  Troas.  All  this  we  prove  from  Scripture.  Who 
can  doubt  then  that  he  was  on  the  shores  of  the  iEgean  Sea,  after 
his  release  from  the  tribunal  of  Caesar,  when  brought  before  it 
the  first  time  ?  Or,  who  will  say  that  our  evidence  is  insufficient, 
when  we  assert,  that,  as  the  first  two  dates  assigned  for  his 
placing  Timothy  at  Ephesus  are  indefensible,  it  must  have  been 
now,  in  these  later  voyages,  that  he  committed  that  church  to 
this  his  favorite  son  in  the  faith,  and  went  on  himself  to  Mace- 
donia? 

But  we  shall  strengthen  this  body  of  argument  by  showing  that 
Timothy  also  returned  to  the  east,  after  being  with  Paul  in  Rome. 
11 


122  TIMOTHY  AT   EPHESUS. 

Paul  intended  to  send  Timothy  to  Philippi,  when  he  should  be 
free  to  depart  from  Rome — "  I  trust  in  the  Lord  Jesus  to  send 
Timotheus  shortly  unto  you ;"  "  him,  therefore,  I  hope  to  send 
presently,  so  soon  as  I  shall  see  how  it  will  go  with  me."  (Phil, 
ii.  19,  23.) 

Paul  intended  that  Timothy  should  accompany  him  to  the 
Hebrews — "  Our  brother  Timothy  is  set  at  liberty,  with  whom,  if 
he  come  shortly,  I  will  see  you."  (Heb.  xiii.  23.)  From  this 
passage  it  appears  that  Timothy  had  also  been  a  prisoner  in 
Rome,  but  was  now  released.  At  the  moment  of  Paul's  writing 
Timothy  had,  for  a  short  time,  left  him ;  according  to  Grotius, 
this  excursion  was  into  Gaul,  but  he  was  soon  expected  back  to 
accompany  Paul  on  his  eastern  voyage. 

Timothy  actually  was  among  the  eastern  churches,  after  leav- 
ing Rome.  While  in  Rome,  Paul  writes  to  the  Colossians  con- 
cerning JVIarcus  or  Mark, — "  If  he  come  unto  you,  receive  him  :" 
(Col.  iv.  10 :)  which  shows  that  Mark  was  expected  lo  go  to 
Colosse.  In  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  written  after  Paul's 
first,  and  during  his  second  imprisonment,  he  writes—"  Take 
Mark,  and  bring  him  with  thee"  to  Rome.  (2  Tim.  iv.  11.) 
Mark,  therefore,  had  gone  to  Colosse ;  and  Timothy  was  now 
again  so  near  that  place,  that  Paul  desired  the  latter  to  summon 
the  former,  or  "  take"  him  on  his  way,  to  rejoin  himself,  again 
in  bonds  in  Rome. 

Timothy  actually  was,  after  leaving  Rome,  so  near  Troas,  on 
the  iEgean  coast,  that  Paul,  in  the  second  epistle  to  him,  desired 
him  to  stop  there  for  his  cloak,  books,  and  parchments,  or  else  to 
obtain  them  from  that  place,  and  bring  them  with  him  to  Rome, 
where  the  great  Apostle  was  now  again  imprisoned.  (2  Tim. 
iv.  13.)  This,  be  it  remarked,  is  positive  evidence,  depending  in  no 
degree  on  construction.  And  it  renders  it  infallibly  certain  that 
Timothy  was  in  the  regions  not  far  from  Ephesus  at  this  late 
period,  the  second  epistle  to  him  being  of  the  date  of  A.  D.  60. 
With  such  a  positive  basis,  conjecture  uses  but  moderate  license 
in  adding,  that  Timothy  was  in  Ephesus  itself,  when  this  epistle 
was  addressed  to  him. 

Timothy  actually  was,  we  now  further  assert,  in  Ephesus 
itself  after  being  Paul's  companion  in  his  first  imprisonment  at 
Rome.  The  second  epistle  to  him,  written  after  that  period,  is 
still  our  authority.  1,  Paul,  as  was  not  unusual  with  him, 
names  the  messenger  by  whom  he  sent  this  epistle,  and  says 
that  he  had  despatched  him  to  Ephesus — "  Tychjcus  have  I  sent 
to  Ephesus."  (2  Tim.  iv.  12;  see  also  Rom.  xvi.  1 ;  1  Cor.  iv.  17; 
xvi.  10;  2  Cor.  viii.  16,  18 ;  Eph.  vi.  21 ;  Phil.  ii.  25 ;  Col.  iv.  7,  9  ; 
Philem.  12;  also  1  Pet.  v.  12.)  2,  Paul,  in  this  second  epistle, 
desires  Timothy  to  salute  the  family  of  Onesiphorus  ;  and  this 
excellent  person's  ;  residence  was  in  Ephesus.  (2  Tim.  iv.  19  : 
comp.  do.  i.  16-18.)  3.  In  the  first  epistle,  when  Timothy  was 
confessedly  at  Ephesus,  Paul  mentions  Hymeneus  and  Alex- 
ander, as  unfaithful  ministers  of  that  church ;  in  the  second, 


TIMOTHY   AT   EPHESUS.  123 

epistle  he  again  names  the  same  persons  to  Timothy,  (1  Tim. 
i.  20;  2  Tim.  ii.  17 ;  iv.  14 ;  see  also  Acts  xix.  33,)  which  implies 
that  the  latter  was  then  also  in  that  city.  4.  Against  this 
Alexander,  a  resident  of  Ephesus,  though  just  then  in  Rome, 
opposing  virulently  the  persecuted  Paul,  that  apostle  specially 
cautions  Timothy,  (2  Tim.  iv.  14,  15,)  which  Implies  that  Tim- 
othy was  even  to  continue  in  Ephesus  after  Alexander  should 
return  thither. 

Timothy  actually  was  with  Paul  in  these  eastern  parts,  after 
their  release  at  Rome.  The  language,  "Erastus  abode  at 
Corinth,  but  Trophimus  have  I  left  at  Miletum  sick,"  implies 
that  the  whole  four  had  recently  been  companions  somewhere 
in  those  regions,  as  is  allowed  by  Doddridge  in  the  extract 
already  given. 

We  may  here  put  together  some  of  the  incidents  now  proTed, 
so  as  to  throw  much  light  on  the  proper  date  of  the  placing  of 
Timothy  at  Ephesus.  Paul  and  Timothy,  with  probably  others, 
return  from  Rome  to  the  eastern  churches,  visiting  excursively 
among  them,  including  Crete,  where  Titus  was  "  left,"  and  not 
forgetting  Philippi.  Erastus  and  Trophimus  are  then  in  com- 
pany with  them  on  the  shores  of  Asia  Minor.  They  are  in  or 
near  Ephesus.  Paul  desires  Timothy  to  remain  there  as  the 
head  of  that  church,  and  proceeds  without  him  through  Troas 
to  Macedonia,  spending  a  winter  at  Nicopolis,  in  that  province, 
or  in  Epirus.  From  Macedonia  or  Nicopolis,  he  goes  on  to 
Corinth,  where  Erastus  remains,  that  city  being  his  home. 
(Rom.  xvi.)  Thence  he  sails  to  Crete,  where  he  leaves  Trophi- 
mus sick  at  Miletus.  And  after  that  he  is  again  at  Rome,  and 
again  a  prisoner,  when  he  writes  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy. 
Let  the  candid  reader  examine  what  has  been  offered  under  this 
third  head,  and  determine  whether  this  specification  of  some  of 
the  later  travels  of  Paul,  is  not  supported  by  sufficient  scriptural 
evidence,  and  whether  we  have  not  here  assigned  the  true  date 
of  the  connexion  of  Timothy  with  the  Ephesian  church,  as  its 
ecclesiastical  superior. 

Before  proceeding,  we  ask  the  reader's  further  attention  to 
another  and  interesting  proof  that  Timothy  went  eastward, 
and  to  Ephesus,  after  he  and  Paul  were  at  Rome,  and  that 
ihe  first  epistle  to  him  was  also  written  at  this  late  date.  We 
have  seen  that  Timothy  was  imprisoned  at  Rome,  and  "  set  at 
liberty."*    An  allusion  to  his  trial  on  this  occasion,  is  found  in 

♦  Heb.  xiii.  23.  Some  translate  this  expression  "  sent  away,"  tlius  denying  that 
Timothy  had  been  a  prisoner  ;  but  we  can  find  nothing  to  outweigh  the  rendering 
of  our  translators,  "set  at  liberty ;"  with  which  also  agree  Beza,  Hammond,  Calmet, 
Doddridge,  and  many  others.  Why  does  Paul  say  to  the  Philippians,  "  I  trust  in 
tlie  Lord  Jesus,  to  send  Timotheus  shortly  unto  youl"  (Phil.  ii.  19.)  He  sent 
Epaphroditus,  but  Timothy  he  only  trusis  or  hopes  to  send,  using  the  same  laiv 
guage  as  in  regard  to  leaving  Rome  himself,  "  I  trust  in  the  Lord,  that  I  myself 
shall  come  shortly."  This  mode  of  speaking  confirms  the  opinion  that  Timothy 
was,  like  the  Apostle,  a  prisoner  in  Rome  at  that  period.  Epaphras,  another  conj- 
panion  of  Paul,  was  also  a  prisoner  with  him  at  Rome.  (Seo  Philem.  23.)    Sa  like- 


124  TIMOTHY   AT   EPHESUS. 

the  first  epistle,  (vi.  12,)  "  and  hast  professed  a  good  profession 
before  many  witnesses."  The  words  "  professed  a  good  profes- 
sion," may  with  equal  propriety  read  "  confessed  a  good  confes- 
sion,^'' and  TTiv  Ka\rtv  oiio^oyiav  is  SO  translated  in  the  next  verse, 
concerning  Christ.  Such  language  at  once  presents  the  idea 
that  Timothy  was  a  confessor,  a  term  afterward  applied  to 
those  Christians  who  were  tried  or  severely  dealt  with  by  their 
persecutors,  but  escaped  with  life;  the  name  martyr  being 
appropriated  to  those  who  suffered  death  in  the  cause  of  their 
religion.  In  this  view  of  Timothy's  suflferings  we  see  the  con- 
nexion between  this  verse  and  the  next,  viz.  Timothy  confessed 
a  good  confession  before  many  witnesses,  as  the  Saviour  wit- 
nessed a  good  confession  before  Pilate.  This  confession  of 
Timothy  was  of  course  connected  with  his  imprisonment  at 
Rome,  (or  in  Italy,)  for  we  nowhere  read  of  his  being  in  prison, 
or  suffering  peculiar  persecution,  or  any  persecution  in  which 
he  was  so  prominent  as  to  be  a  conspicuous  confessor,  in  any 
other  place.*  This  explanation  of  the  passage  before  us  will, 
we  thinic,  bear  investigation.  And  the  result  is,  that  Timothy 
had  been  in  Rome  with  Paul,  and  had  returned  to  the  east,  before 
he  was  placed  over  the  church  at  Ephesus,  and  before  the  first 
epistle  was  written  to  him. 

To  the  late  date  thus  given  to  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy,  and 
his  being  stationed  in  Ephesus  to  govern  its  church,  "  there  are 
three  plausible  objections,  (says  Macknight,)  which  must  not  be 
overlooked. 

"  1.  It  is  thought  that  if  this  epistle  was  written  after  the 
Apostle's  release,  he  could  not,  with  any  propriety,  have  said  to 

wise  was  Aristarchus.  (See  Col.  iv.  10.)  And  these  cases  of  the  imprisonment  of 
Paul's  friends  at  that  time,  showing  that  such  occurrences  then  took  place,  appear 
to  us  to  settle  the  translation  of  the  passage  respecting  Timothy,  that  he  had  been 
"  set  at  liberty"  from  prison  or  arrest. 

•  Commentators  differ  concerning  the  "  profession"  or  "  confession"  of  Timothy  5 
some  making  it  a  baptismal  profession  ;  some,  a  profession  when  he  was  ordained  ; 
some,  a  profession  throughout  his  ministry,,  in  the  midst  of  opposition.  None  of 
these  interpretations,  however,  agree  with  the  comparing  of  Timothy's  confession  to 
that  of  Christ,  in  the  next  verse.  Hence,  other  authors  refer  it  to  some  Ephesian 
persecution  of  Timothy  ;  but  of  this,  though  much  is  recorded  of  Ephesian  affairs, 
(Acts  lix.)  there  is  no  evidence  whatever.  Aretius  urges  that  it  was  a  confession 
before  heathen  judges,  in  bonds,  and  with  peril  of  life,  "  because  the  Apostle  terms  it 
Ka\y}v,  a  '  good'  confession,  that  is,  conspicuously  excellent  or  illustrious,  (specio- 
sam,)  and  attended  with  danger ;  moreover,  because  he  adds  that  this  confession  was 
made  before  many  witnesses,  that  is,  with  intrepidity,  all  danger  of  life  being  dis- 
regarded." This  author  notices,  likewise,  that  such  were  afterward  cedled  "con- 
fessore,"  and  were  next  in  estimation  to  martyrs.  He  assigns  not  the  time  or  place 
of  this  "confession"  of  Timothy ;  but,  as  the  only  time  we  hear  of  his  being  under 
restraint  was  when  he  was  in  Rome  (Italy)  with  Paul,  the  evidence,  all  that  we 
liave,  favors  our  assertion  that  it  was  then  and  there  that  Timothy  acquired  the 
honor  of  ranking  with  "confessors."  Calmet  agrees  that  Timothy  was  a  "con- 
fee«or"  at  the  hazard  of  his  life.  Hammond  regards  the  "confession"  as  a  "great 
persecution  for  the  faith  of  Christ."  We  may  add,  that  the  margin,  being  one  of 
much  excellence,  of  a  Scotch  edition  of  the  Bible,  refers  from  each  of  the  passages, 
now  under  notice,  to  the  other — from  the  "  good  confession"  to  the  "  set  at  liberty," 
and  vice  versa.  1  Tim.  vi.  12  ;  Heb.  xiii.  23. 


TLMOTHY  AT  EPHESU3.  125 

Timothy  iv.  12,  "  Let  no  man  despise  thy  youth?^  But  it  is  re- 
plied, that  Servius  Tullius,  in  classing  the  Roman  people,  as  Aulus 
Geilius  relates,  (1.  x.  c.  28,)  divided  their  age  into  three  periods. 
Childhood^  he  limited  to  the  age  of  seventeen :  youth,  from  that 
to  forty-six:  and  old  age,  from  forty-six  to  the  end  of  life. 
Now,  supposing  Timothy  to  have  been  18  years  old,  A.  D.  50, 
when  he  became  Paul's  assistant,  he  would  be  no  more  than  32, 
A.  D.  64,  two  years  after  the  Apostle's  release,  when  it  is  sup- 
posed this  epistle  was  written.*  Wherefore,  being  then  in  the 
period  of  life  which,  by  the  Greeks  as  well  as  the  Romans,  was 
considered  as  youth,  the  Apostle  with  propriety  might  say  to 
him,  'Let  no  man  despise  thy  youth.' 

"  2.  It  is  asked,  What  occasion  was  there,  in  an  epistle  written 
after  the  Apostle's  release,  to  give  Timothy  directions  concerning 
the  ordination  of  bishops  and  deacons  in  a  church  where  there 
were  so  many  elders  already  ?  (Acts  xx.  17.)  The  answer  is, 
the  elders  in  the  year  58  may  have  been  too  few  for  the  church 
at  Ephesus,  in  her  increased  state,  in  the  year  65.  Besides,  false 
teachers  had  then  entered,  to  oppose  whom  more  bishops  and 
deacons  might  be  needed  than  w^ere  necessary  in  the  year  5^. 
Not  to  mention  that  some  of  the  first  elders  having  died,  others 
were  wanted  to  supply  their  places."  [The  reader  will  observe 
that  this  argument  of  Dr.  Macknight's  implies  that  elders  or 
presbyter-bishops  were  not  allowed  to  ordain ;  for  if  they  had 
had  that  power,  those  already  in  Ephesus  could  have  ordained 
as  many  as  the  growing  church  required  :  nor  would  Timothy's 
staying  there  to  ordain  have  secured  a  majority  of  sound  minis- 
ters ;  for  the  unsound  elders,  if  they  could  have  ordained,  might 
have  added  to  their  numbers  as  fast  as  they  pleased,  and  so  have 
defeated  this  object.  Dr.  Macknight  was  an  eminent  Presbyte- 
rian divine.] 

"  3.  Because  the  Apostle  wrote  to  Timothy  that  he  '  hoped  to 
come  to  him  soon,'  (1  Tim.  iii.  14,)  it  is  argued,  that  the  letter  in 
which  this  is  said,  must  have  been  written  before  he  said  to  the 
Ephesian  elders,  (Acts  xx.  25,)  '  I  know  that  all  ye,  among  whom 
I  have  gone  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God,  shall  see  my  face  no 

more.'     But, as  it  was  no  point  of  either  faith  or  practice 

which  he  spake,  he  may  well  be  supposed  to  have  declared 
nothing  but  his  own  opinion,  resulting  from  his  fears.  He  had 
lately  escaped  the  rage  of  the  Jews,  who  laid  wait  for  him  in 
Cenchrea,  to  kill  him.  (Acts  xx.  3.)  This,  with  their  fury  on 
former  occasions,  [see  also  Acts  xx.  22,  23,  24,]  filled  him  with 
such  anxiety,  that  in  writing  to  the  Romans  from  Corinth,  he 


*  Dr.  Macknight's  chronology  differs  from  that  of  Bishop  Lloyd,  the  one  usually 
adopted,  in  that  the  former  calculates  the  "  fourteen  years  after,"  (Gat.  ii.  1,)  from 
the  conversion  of  Paul,  instead  of  his  first  visit  to  Jerusalem,  three  years  later,  (GaL 
i.  18.)  According  to  Bishop  Lloyd,  Timothy  became  Paul's  assistant,  A.  D.  53^ 
(Acts  xvi.  3,)  and  the  first  epistle  to  him  was  written,  A.  D.  65.  If  Timothy  was  18 
years  old  at  the  first  date,  he  was  30  at  the  second ;  or  if  21  at  the  first,  he  was  33  at 
the  second.  This  latter  age  is  but  youth,  in  most  men. 
11* 


126  TIMOTHY   AT   EPHESUS. 

requested  them  to  'strive  together  with  him  in  their  prayers,  that 
he  might  be  delivered  from  the  unbelieving  in  Judea.'  (Rom. 
XV.  30,  31.)  Further,  that  in  his  speech  to  the  Ephesian  elders, 
the  Apostle  only  declared  his  own  persuasion,  dictated  by  his 
fears,  and  not  any  suggestion  of  the  Spirit,  I  think  plain  from 
what  he  had  said  immediately  before — '  Behold,  I  go  bound  in 
the  spirit  to  Jerusalem,  not  knowing  the  things  which  shall  befall 
me  there ;  save  that  the  Holy  Ghost  witnesseth  in  every  city, 
saying,  that  bonds  and  afflictions  abide  me.'  Wherefore,  al- 
though his  fears  were  happily  disappointed,  and  he  actually- 
visited  the  Ephesians  after  his  release,  his  character  as  an  in- 
spired apostle  is  not  hurt  in  the  least,  if,  in  saying  '  he  knew  they 
should  see  his  face  no  more,'  he  declared,  as  I  have  said,  his  own 
persuasion  only,  and  no  dictate  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Macknighty 
iv.  p.  160. 

In  regard  to  this  latter  objection,  that  Paul  was  to  see  the 
elders  of  Ephesus  no  more,  it  is  further  to  be  remarked  that  he 
may  have  never  seen  them  again,  or  have  been  in  Ephesus  itself, 
although  he  visited  other  eastern  churches,  and  other  parts  of 
tlje  ^gean  coasts.  He  may,  when  he  "  was  going  into  Mace- 
donia," have  been  in  a  vessel  which  but  touched  at  Ephesus; 
and  so  have  left  Timothy  there,  while  he  continued  his  voyage. 
Or,  Timothy  may,  at  that  time,  have  been  at  Ephesus,  and  re- 
joined him  in  those  parts,  when  Paul  requested  him  to  "  abide" 
there  "still.'*  Or,  without  Timothy's  thus  rejoining  him,  Paul 
may  have  despatched  a  messenger  or  a  letter  to  him,  beseeching 
him  to  continue  in  that  city ;  the  first  epistle  being  afterward 
sent,  as  his  full  credentials  in  his  high  office.  That  Paul  and 
Timothy  revisited  those  regions  after  being  in  Rome,  has,  we 
think,  been  abundantly  shown ;  and  either  of  the  above  suppo- 
sitions, each  of  them  being  perfectly  natural,  will  meet  the 
objection  that  Paul  was  to  see  the  Ephesian  elders  no  more. 
Doddridge,  on  this  passage,  observes  —  "  I  conclude  that  the 
Apostle  had  received  some  particular  revelation,  that,  if  he  should 
ever  return  to  these  parts  of  Asia  again,  (as  from  IPhilem.  22,  I 
think  it  probable  he  might,)  yet  that  he  should  not  have  an  op- 
portunity of  calling  at  Ephesus,  or  of  seeing  the  ministers  whom 
he  now  addressed." 

As  on  the  one  hand  there  is  good  authority  for  interpreting 
the  above  declaration  of  Paul,  (that  he  knew  he  would  see  those 
elders  no  more,)  as  being  the  mere  suggestion  of  his  apprehen- 
sions, (see  Macknight,  Hammond,  Poole's  Synopsis  and  Poole's 
Annot.)  it  is  perfectly  fair  to  suppose  that  both  he  and  Timothy 
were  now  again  in  Ephesus,  when  he  besought  him  to  abide 
there  as  the  head  of  its  church.  But  if  it  be  alleged,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  this  impression  of  Paul  was  prophetic  and 
inspired,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  be  met  Timothy  or  sent  him 
a  message,  while  somewhere  near  Ephesus,  on  his  way  to 
Macedonia,  when,  at  the  late  period  mentioned,  he  made  this 
request  of  him. 


TIMOTHY   AT   EPHESUS.  127 

We  shall  add  one  more  valuable  extract  from  Macknight. 
(IV.  157.) 

"When  the  Apostle  wrote  his  first  epistle  to  Timothy,  'he 
hoped  to  come  to  him  soon.^  (iii.  14.)  But  from  the  history  of 
the  Acts,  it  is  certain  that  in  no  letter  written  to  Timothy  after 
the  riot,  till  his  first  confinement  in  Rome,  could  the  Apostle 
say  that  he  hoped  to  '  come  to  him  soon.'  He  could  not  say  so 
in  any  letter  written  from  Troas,  the  first  place  he  stopped  at 
after  leaving  Ephesus  :  for  at  that  time  he  was  going  into 
Macedonia  and  Achaia  to  receive  the  collections  [for  the  poor 
brethren  in  Jerusalem]  from  the  churches  in  these  provinces. 
[Acts  XX.  1 ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  3,  4,  5.]  Neither  could  he  say  so  after 
writing  his  second  to  the  Corinthians,  from  Macedonia:  for  in 
that  epistle  he  told  the  Corinthians  he  was  coming  to  them  with 
the  Macedonian  brethren,  who  were  commissioned  to  attend 
him  in  his  voyage  to  Jerusalem  with  the  collections,  (2  Cor. 
xi.  4,)  and  that  he  meant  to  sail  directly  from  Corinth  to  Judea. 
(2  Cor.  i.  16.)  [See  also  Rom.  xv.  25,  26,  written  at  Corinth.] 
As  little  could  he  write  to  Timothy,  that  he  '  hoped  to  come  to 
him  soon,'  when  he  altered  his  resolution  on  occasion  of  the 
lying  in  wait  of  the  Jews,  and  returned  into  Macedonia;  (Acts 
XX.  3 :)  for  he  was  then  in  such  haste  to  be  at  Jerusalem  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  that  when  he  came  to  Miletus,  instead  of 
going  to  Ephesus,  he  sent  for  the  elders  of  that  church  to  come 
to  him.  (Acts  xx.  16,  17.)  When  he  arrived  in  Judea  he  could 
not  write  that  he  '  hoped  to  come  to  Ephesus  soon :'  for  h^ 
was  imprisoned  a  few  days  after  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem. 
And  having  continued  two  years  in  prison  at  Caesarea,  he  was 
sent  bound  to  Rome,  where  likewise  being  confined,  he  could 
not,  till  toward  the  conclusion  of  that  confinement,  write  to 
Timothy  that  he  '  hoped  to  come  to  him  soon.'  And  even  then 
he  did  not  write  his  first  epistle  to  Timothy :  for  Timothy 
was  with  him  at  the  conclusion  of  his  confinement.  (Philip, 
ii.  19-23.)"  * 

We  feel  confident  that  no  ingenuity  can  overturn  the  mass  of 
argument  now  adduced.  And  we  therefore  do  not  hesitate  to 
answer  finally  the  question,  When  did  Paul  place  Timothy  over 
the  church  at  Ephesus?  He  did  so  when  they  both  were  among 
the  eastern  churches  after  his  first  imprisonment  in  Rome,  and 
not  before,  the  date  being  A.  D.  65,  according  to  Bishop  Lloyd's 
chronology.* 

At  that  time  there  was  a  body  of  clergy  in  Ephesus,  for  there 
had  been  five  years  or  more  previously,  (Acts  xx.  17;)  and 
over  these  Timothy  was  placed  as  the  supreme  oflicer,  soon 
afterward  called  a  bishop.  It  matters  little  indeed  in  reference 
to  the  Episcopal  argument  whether  Timothy  found  clergy  in 


*  Of  modern  authorities,  besides  Macknight, — T.  ScoU,  A,  Clarke,  Bishop,  Tomline, 
G.  Townsend,  and  T.  Hartwell  Home,  agree  that  the  date  of  this  epistle  was  after 
Paul's  first  imprisomaent  in  Rome,  and  about  the  year  we  have  assigned. 


128  TIMOTHY   AT   EPHESD8. 

Ephesus,  when  he  took  charge  of  the  church  with  the  power  of 
ordaining  and  governing ;  or  whether  there  were  none  there  as 
yet,  and  he  was  to  ordain  all  that  were  required.  In  either  case 
he  would  have  the  ordaining  power,  such  as  the  apostles  had, 
and  such  as  presbyters  (alone)  are  nowhere  in  Scripture  said 
to  possess.  As,  however,  the  truth  is  that  there  were  clergy 
('*  teachers")  in  Ephesus  when  Timothy  was  placed  there,  we 
nave  deemed  it  proper  in  the  present  article  to  illustrate  and 
confirm  this  only  sound  view  of  the  subject. 

We  again,  therefore,  desire  the  reader  to  compare  St.  Paul's 
address  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  (Acts  xx.  18-35,)  with  the 
epistles  to  Timothy,  when  afterward  placed  over  them  as  their 
bishop.  While  the  elders  had  no  bishop,  nothing  was  hinted  of 
any  ordaining  or  supreme  clerical  power  in  Ephesus.  When, 
however,  a  bishop  was  afterward  resident  with  them,  those 
powers  are  fully  recognised  as  existing  there  in  the  person  of 
Timothy :  he  is  to  "  lay  on  hands  ;"  he  is  to  '•  receive  accusations 
against  elders ;"  he  is  to  "  charge  them  to  teach  no  false  doc- 
trine j"  "  this  charge  I  commit  unto  thee,  son  Timothy."  The 
elders  are  never  once  mentioned  as  having  these  rights,  or  as 
sharing  them.  If  our  opponents  say  that  he  superseded  the 
elders  for  a  time,  we  first  ask  the  proof  that  the  latter  had  such 
powers  before  he  came  among  them;  we  next  ask  the  proof  that 
they  resumed  such  powers  on  his  relinquishing  that  church,  if 
he  ever  did:  but  no  proof  can  be  found  for  either  of  these 
points.  Why  should  there  not  be  scriptural  evidence  for  Pres- 
byterian ordination,  and  that  evidence  as  strong  and  as  clear  as 
for  the  (so  called)  evangelical  right  of  ordination  existing  in 
Timothy  ?  How  is  it,  if  evangelical  ordination  (so  called)  was 
but  temporary,  while  Presbyterian  ordination  was  to  be  perma- 
nent, that  the  former  stands  broadly  and  for  ever  on  record, 
while  the  latter  has  not  one  particle  of  proof  positive  in  the  New 
Testament  ? 

The  Episcopal  solution  of  these  questions  is  the  only  sound  one. 

1.  Ordination  did  not  belong  to  evangelists  merely  as  such,  but 
to  ministers  of  a  fixed  grade  superior  to  elders  or  presbyters. 

2.  Ordination  by  these  superior  officers  was  not  to  be  tempo- 
rary, but  permanent ;  and  therefore  tliis  right,  as  possessed  by 
such  officers,  of  apostolical  or  Episcopal  rank,  stands  broadly 
and  for  ever  on  record.  3.  Ordination  by  inferior  clergymen 
was  never  designed  by  Christ  or  the  Apostles ;  and  therefore 
the  New  Testament  affords  it  not  a  particle  of  proof  positive. 
So  clear  is  the  Episcopal  interpretation  and  view  of  these  parts 
of  Scripture. 

And  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  chief  officer  and  the  elders 
of  the  same  church  are  thus  set  in  contrast.  Had  indeed  the 
address  of  Paul  been  to  the  elders  of  Antioch  or  Philippi,  of 
Pontus  or  lUyricum,  while  the  epistles  were  to  Timothy  in 
Ephesus,  our  argument  would  have  been  strong  enough ;  as 
showing  that  the  office  of  the  latter  was  superior  to  that  of  the 


TIMOTHY   AT   EPHE3U3.  120 

former.  But  as  both  belonged  to  the  one  church  of  Ephesus, 
we  have  the  stronger  argument,  that  that  identical  officer  Timo- 
thy, was  superior  to  that  identical  body  of  elders,  and  exercised 
his  powers  over  the  very  church  to  which  they  belonged. 

In  the  full  enjoyment  of  these  powers,  ordaining  and  supreme 
government,  and  fixed  at  Ephesus,  with  the  exception  of  a  visit 
to  the  venerable  Paul  when  expecting  martyrdom,  the  holy 
record  completes  its  notice  of  Timothy,  his  eminent  and  most 
beloved  son  in  the  Gospel.  The  functions  of  the  apostles  and 
of  their  first  Episcopal  brethren  were  sometimes  diocesan  and 
sometimes  excursive ;  a  bishop  may  perform  Episcopal  duty 
either  way.  Timothy  appears  to  have  often  performed  excur- 
sive Episcopal  offices.  But,  from  the  tone  of  the  two  epistles, 
from  the  charge  to  him  to  oppose  false  teachers,  while  it  yet 
is  intimated  that  false  teaching  would  continue  even  to  the 
"  latter  times,"— trom  the  warning  given  him  respecting  Alexan- 
der when  he  should  return  from  Rome  to  Ephesus, — from  the 
admonition  to  be  faithful  in  his  trust  "till  the  appearing  of 
Christ,"  i.  e.  till  Timothy's  own  death, — from  the  intimation  that 
his  functions  were  to  continue  should  Paul  "  tarry  long,"  and 
its  not  being  revoked  in  the  second  epistle,  when  he  fully 
expected  martyrdom,— from  all  these  considerations,  added  to 
Paul's  original  request  that  he  would  remain  indefinitely  at 
Ephesus,  we  conclude,  that  from  the  time  of  that  request,  and 
when  Scripture  takes  its  leave  of  him,  he  was  the  diocesaa 
bishop  of  the  church  in  that  city, 

H.  U.  O. 


From  the  Quarterly  Christian  SpectatM-. 

REVIEW. 


Answer  to  a  Review  (in  the  Quarterly  Christian  Spectator)  of 
^^ Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture ;''  first  published  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopalian  for  May,  1834.  Philadelphia:  Jesper  Harding.  1834. 
pp.  19. 

When  the  review  of  the  tract,  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scrip- 
ture," was  prepared,*  it  was  not  our  design  to  engage  in  a  con- 
troversy on  the  subject  there  discussed.  We  well  knew  how 
unprofitable  and  how  endless  such  a  controversy  might  become; 
and  we  felt  that  we  had  more  important  business  to  engage  our 
attention,  than  that  of  endeavoring  to  defend  the  external  order 
of  the  Church.  The  subject  attracted  our  notice,  because,  on 
two  different  occasions,  the  tract  which  was  the  subject  of  the 
review,  had  been  sent  to  us,  in  one  instance  accompanied  with  a 
polite  request, — evidently  from  an  Episcopalian, — to  give  to  it 
our  particular  attention ;  because,  too,  the  tract  had  been  pub- 
lished at  the  "  Episcopal  Press,"  and  it  was  known  that  it  would 
be  extensively  circulated;  because  it  had  been  the  subject  of  no 
small  self-gratulation  among  the  Episcopalians,  and  had  been 
suffered,  notwithstanding  the  manifest  complacency  with  which 
they  regarded  it,  to  lie  unanswered  ;  but  mainly,  because  it  made 
an  appeal  at  once  to  the  Bible,  and  professed  a  willingness  that 
the  question  should  be  settled  by  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures 
alone.  This  appeared  to  us  to  be  placing  the  subject  on  new 
ground.  The  first  emotion  produced  by  the  title  of  the  tract 
was  one  of  surprise.  We  had  been  so  accustomed  to  regard  this 
controversy  as  one  that  was  to  be  settled  solely  by  the  authority 
of  the  fathers ;  we  had  been  so  disheartened,  and  sickened  by 
the  unprofitable  nature,  the  interminable  duration,  and  the  want 
of  fixed  bounds  and  principles,  in  that  investigation ;  we  had 
seen  so  little  reference  made  to  the  Bible,  on  either  side  of  the 
question,  that  it  excited  in  us  no  small  degree  of  surprise  to 
learn,  that  a  bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church  should  be  willing 
to  make  a  direct,  decisive,  and  unqualified  appeal  to  the  New 
Testament.  It  was  so  unusual ;  it  gave  so  new  a  direction  to 
the  controversy  ;  it  promised  so  speedy  an  issue,  and  one  so 
little  auspicious  to  the  cause  which  the  bishop  was  engaged  in 
defending,  that  we  were  not  unwilling  to  turn  aside  from  our 
usual  engagements,  and  to  examine  the  proofs  adduced  in  this 
somewhat  novel  mode  of  the  Episcopal  controversy. 

♦  Christian  Spectator,  vol.  vi. 

(130) 


REVIEW — ANSWER   TO  A  REVIEW,   ETC.  131 

Shortly  after  our  review  was  published,  an  "Answer"  to  the 
article  appeared  in  the  "Protestant  Episcopalian,"  understood 
to  come  from  the  author  of  the  Tract.  With  a  copy  of  this,  the 
writer  of  the  review  was  politely  furnished  by  Dr.  Onderdonk. 
The  "Answer"  is  marked  with  the  same  general  characteristics 
as  the  Tract  itself.  It  evinces,  in  genera],  the  same  spirit  of 
Christian  feeling,  and  of  candid  inquiry;  the  same  calm,  col- 
lected, and  manly  style  of  argument ;  the  same  familiarity  with 
the  subject;  and  the  same  habit, — by  no  means  as  common  as 
is  desirable, — of  applying  the  principles  of  the  inductive  philo- 
sophy to  moral  subjects.  To  this  general  statement,  perhaps, 
should  be  made  a  slight  exception.  A  candid  observer  possibly 
would  discern  in  the  "Answer"  some  marks  of  haste,  and  some 
indications  of  disturbed  repose,— possibly  of  a  slight  sensation 
in  perceiving  that  the  material  point  of  the  argument  in  the 
Tract,  had  not  been  as  strongly  fortified  as  was  indispensable. 
As  instances  of  this  sensation,  we  might  notice  the  train  of 
remarks  in  pp.  8,  9,  and  especially  in  the  following  expressions : 
"The  reasonings  throughout  his  article,"  (the  reviewer's,)  "are 
much  the  same  as  those  usually  brought  against  Episcopacy; 
and  vvhere  they  are  not  the  same,  they  are  so  much  minus  the 
former  ground,"  &c.  "No  one,  for  three  years,  brought  these 
old  reasonings  against  the  Tract — no  one,  till  the  reviewer  fancied 
he  had  discovered  a  weak  spot  in  it,  and  might,  therefore,  re- 
produce some  of  them  with  effect."  "  The  present  is  onty  a 
start  in  its  slumber."  And  again,  on  page  15,  the  author  of  the 
reply  speaks  of  the  reviewer  as  one  whom  he  suspects  "  to  be  a 
new  comer  into  this  field  of  controversy,"  if  not  with  the  inten- 
tion, at  least  with  the  appearance,  of  designing  to  disparage  the 
force  of  the  arguments  which  the  reviewer  had  urged.  Now,  it 
is  unnecessary  for  us  to  remind  Dr.  Onderdonk,  that  the  inquiry 
is  not,  whether  the  arguments  are  old  or  new,  but  whether  they 
are  pertinent  and  valid.  Nor  is  the  question,  whether  one  is  a 
"  new  comer"  into  this  controversy.  Arguments  may  not  be  the 
less  cogent  and  unanswerable,  for  being  urged  by  one  who  has 
not  before  entered  the  lists  ;  nor  will  arguments  from  the  Bible 
be  satisfactorily  met  by  an  affirmation  that  they  are  urged  by 
one  unknown  in  the  field  of  debate.  It  may  be  proper,  however, 
for  us  to  observe,  in  self-vindication,  that  the  arguments  which 
we  urged  were  drawn  from  no  other  book  than  the  Bible.  The 
"  Tract"  and  the  New  Testament  were  the  only  books  before  us 
in  the  preparation  of  the  article.  The  course  of  argument  sug- 
gested was  that  only  which  was  produced  by  the  investigation 
of  the  Scriptures.  Whether  we  have  fallen  into  any  train  of 
thinking  which  has  been  before  urged  by  writers  on  this  sub- 
ject, we  do  not  even  now  know,  nor  are  we  likely  to  know;  as 
it  is  our  fixed  purpose  not  to  travel  out  of  the  record  before  us, 
— the  inspired  account  of  the  matter  in  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
If,  however,  the  arguments  which  we  have  urged,  be  "the  same 
with  those  which  are  usually  brought  against  Episcopacy,"  (p.  8,) 


132  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A    REVIEW   OP 

it  furnishes  a  case  of  coincidence  of  results,  in  investigating  the 
New  Testament,  which  is  itself  some  evidence  that  the  objec- 
tions to  Episcopacy  are  such  as  obviously  occur  to  different 
minds,  engaged  in  independent  investigation. 

When  the  reply  appeared,  it  became  a  question  with  us 
whether  the  controversy  should  be  prolonged.  A  perusal  of  the 
"Answer"  did  not  suggest  any  necessity  for  departing  from  our 
original  intention,  not  to  engage  in  such  a  controversy.  It  did 
not  appear  to  furnish  any  new  argument,  which  seemed  to  call 
for  notice,  or  to  invalidate  any  of  the  positions  defended  in  the 
review.  Almost  the  whole  of  the  "Answer"  appeared  to  be 
simply  an  expansion  of  a  note  in  the  Tract,  (p.  12,  note  z,)  which, 
when  the  review  was  prepared,  seemed  not  to  furnish  an  argu- 
ment that  required  particular  attention.  The  fact,  too,  that  the7i 
the  argument  was  expressed  in  a  note,  in  small  type,  and  at  the 
bottom  of  the  page,  was  an  indication  that  it  was  not  of  much 
magnitude  in  the  eye  of  the  author  of  the  Tract  himself.  Why 
it  is  now  expanded,  so  as  to  constitute  the  very  body  and 
essence  of  the  reply,  is  to  us  proof,  that  the  subject,  on  the 
Episcopal  side,  is  exhausted.  This  fact  is  of  such  a  nature,  as 
to  impress  the  mind  strongly  with  the  belief,  that  henceforth 
nothing  remains  to  be  added,  in  the  effort  to  "test  Episcopacy 
by  Scripture." 

In  departing  from  our  original  purpose,  it  is  our  wish  to 
reciprocate  the  kind  feeling  and  candor  of  the  author  of  the 
"Tract,"  and  of  the  "Answer."  Truth,  not  victory,  is  our 
object.  We  have  but  one  wish  on  this  subject.  It  is,  that  the 
principles  upon  which  God  designed  to  establish  and  govern  his 
holy  Church,  may  be  developed  and  understood.  We  resume 
the  subject  with  profound  and  undiminished  respect  for  the 
talents,  the  piety,  and  the  learning  of  the  author  of  the  Tract 
and  Answer;  and  with  a  purpose  that  this  shall  he  final,  on  our 
part,  unless  something  new,  and  vital  to  the  subject,  shall  be 
added.  In  this,  as  well  as  in  all  other  things,  our  desire  is,  not  to 
write  one  line,  which,  dying, — or  in  heaven, 

— we  would  wish  to  blot. 

Still,  this  desire,  so  deeply  cherished,  does  not  forbid  a  full  and 
free  examination  of  arguments.  Our  conscientious  belief  is,  that 
the  superiority  "  in  ministerial  power  and  rights,"  (Tract,  p.  15,) 
claimed  by  Episcopal  bishops,  is  a  superiority  known  in  the 
Episcopal  churches  only,  and  not  in  the  New  Testament;  and 
this  we  purpose  to  show. 

In  entering  upon  our  examination  of  the  "Answer,"  we  may 
remark,  that  the  scriptural  argument  for  Episcopacy  is  now 
fairly  and  entirely  before  the  world.  On  the  Episcopal  side, 
nothing  material  to  be  said,  can  remain.  The  whole  argument 
is  in  the  Tract,  and  in  the  Answer.  If  Episcopacy  is  not  estab- 
lished in  these,  we  may  infer  that  it  is  not  in  tlie  Bible.  If  not 
in  the  Bible,  it  is  not "  necessarily  binding."  (Tract,  p.  3.)    To  this 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  133 

conclusion, — that  the  whole  of  the  material  part  of  the  scriptural 
argument  is  before  the  world,  in  these  pamphlets, — we  are  con- 
ducted by  the  fact  that  neither  talent,  learning,  zeal,  nor  time, 
have  been  wanting,  in  order  to  present  it ;  that  their  author  en- 
tered on  the  discussion,  manifestly  acquainted  with  all  that  was 
to  be  said ;  that  the  subject  has  now  been  before  the  public  more 
than  four  years j  (see  advertisement  to  the  Tract;)  and  that, 
during  that  time,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  if  there  had  been  any  more 
material  statements  to  be  presented  from  the  Bible,  they  would 
have  appeared  in  the  "  Answer."  There  is  much  advantage  in 
examining  an  argument,  with  the  conviction,  that  nothing  more 
remains  to  be  said  ;  and  that  we  may,  therefore,  contemplate  it 
as  an  unbroken  and  unimproveable  whole,  without  the  possibility 
of  any  addition  to  the  number  of  the  arguments,  or  increase  of 
their  strength.  On  this  vantage-ground  we  now  stand,  to  con- 
template the  argument  in  support  of  the  stupendous  fabric  of 
Episcopacy  in  the  Christian  Church. 

In  entering  upon  this  examination,  we  are  struck  with — what 
we  had  indeed  anticipated, — a  very  strong  inclination,  on  the 
part  of  the  author  of  the  Tract,  to  appeal  again  to  certain  "  ex- 
traneous" authorities,  of  which  we  heard  nothing  in  the  Tract 
itself,  except  to  disclaim  them.  The  Tract  commenced  with 
the  bold  and  startling  announcement,  that  if  Episcopacy  has  not 
the  authority  of  Scripture,  it  is  not  "  necessarily  binding."  p.  3. 
*'  No  argument,"  the  Tract  goes  on  to  say,  "  is  worth  taking-  into 
the  account,  that  has  not  a  palpable  bearing  on  the  clear  and 
naked  topic, — the  scriptural  evidence  of  Episcopacy."  p.  3.  We 
have  italicised  a  part  of  this  quotation,  to  call  the  attention  of 
our  readers  particularly  to  it.  The  affirmation,  so  unusual  in 
the  mouth  of  an  Episcopalian,  is,  that  no  argument  is  worth 
TAKING  INTO  THE  ACCOUNT,  that  does  uot  bear  on  the  scriptural 
proof.  Now  we  anticipated  that  if  a  reply  was  made  to  our 
review,  from  any  quarter,  we  should  find  a  qualification  of  this 
statement,  and  a  much  more  complacent  regard  shown  to  the 
fathers,  and  to  other  ^^  extraneous  considerations,"  (Tract,  p.  4,) 
than  would  be  consistent  with  this  unqualified  disclaimer  in  the 
Tract.  The  truth  is,  that  the  fathers  are  regarded  as  too  material 
witnesses,  to  be  so  readily  abandoned.  The  '  tradition  of  the 
elders,'  has  been  too  long  pressed  into  the  service  of  the  Epis- 
copacy ;  there  has  been  too  conscious  a  sense  of  the  weakness 
of  the  scriptural  proof,  to  renounce  heartily,  entirely,  and  for 
ever,  all  reliance  on  other  proof  than  the  New  Testament.  The 
''  Answer"  would  have  lacked  a  very  material  feature  which  we 
expected  to  find  in  it,  if  there  had  been  no  inclination  manifested 
to  plunge  into  this  abyss  of  traditional  history,  where  light  and 
darkness  struggle  together,  and  no  wish  to  recall  the  testimony 
of  uninspired  antiquity,  to  the  service  of  prelacy.  Accordingly, 
we  were  prepared  for  the  following  declaration,  which  we  quote 
entire,  from  pp.  3  and  4,  of  the  Answer  : — 

•'  Because  the  author  of  the  Tract  rested  the  claims  of  Episco- 
12 


134  REVIEW — ANSWER  TO  A  REVIEW   OP 

pacy  finally  on  Scripture — because  he  fills  a  high  ofiice  in  the 
Church — and  because  the  Tract  is  issued  by  so  prominent  an 
Episcopal  institution  as  the  '  Press,'  the  reviewer  seems  to  think 
that  Episcopalians  are  now  to  abandon  all  arguments  not  drawn 
directly  from  the  holy  volume.  Not  at  all.  The  author  of  the 
Tract,  in  his  sermon  at  the  consecration  of  the  four  bishops,  in 
October,  1832,  advocated  Episcopacy,  besides  on  other  grounds, 
on  that  of  there  being  several  grades  of  office  in  the  priesthoods  of 
all  religions,  false  as  well  as  true,  and  in  all  civil  magistracies  and 
other  official  structures, — and,  in  his  late  Charge,  he  adverted  to 
the  evidence  in  its  favor  contained  in  the  fathers.  And  the 
'Press,'  at  the  time  it  issued  the  Tract,  issued  also  with  it,  in  the 
'Works  on  Episcopacy,'  those  of  Dr.  Bowden  and  Dr.  Cooke; 
which  embrace  the  argument  at  large.  There  is  no  reason, 
therefore,  for  thinking,  that,  however  a  single  writer  may  use 
selected  arguments  in  a  single  publication,  either  he  or  other 
Episcopalians  will  (or  should)  narrow  the  ground  they  have 
usually  occupied.  The  fathers  are  consulted  on  this  subject, 
because  the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  describe  forms  an 
historical  basis  for  interpreting  Scripture.  And  general  practice, 
in  regard  to  distinct  grades  among  officers,  throws  a  heavier 
burden  of  disproof  on  those  whose  interpretations  are  adverse  to 
Episcopacy:  this  latter  topic  we  shall  again  notice  before  we 
close." 

This  passage,  so  far  from  insisting,  as  the  Tract  had  done,  that 
no  argument  was  worth  taking  into  the  account,  except  the 
scriptural  proof,  refers  distinctly  to  the  following  points,  which 
we  beg  leave  to  call  "  extraneous  considerations,^''  as  proof  of 
Episcopacy.  (1.)  The  fact,  that  there  "are  several  grades  of 
office  in  the  priesthood  of  all  religions;"  (2.)  That  the  same 
thing  occurs  "  in  all  civil  magistracies,  and  other  official  struc- 
tures;" (3.)  The  evidence  of  the  fathers;  and,  (4.)  "Other 
grounds,"  which  the  author  informs  us  he  had  insisted  on  in  an 
ordination  sermon,  in  1832.  And  in  this  very  passage,  he  makes 
the  following  remarkable  statement,  which  we  propose  soon  to 
notice  further, — "  The  fathers  are  consulted  on  the  subject,  be- 
cause the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  describe,  forms  an 
historical  basis  for  interpreting  Scripture." 

Slight  circumstances  often  show  strong  inclinations  and  habits 
of  mind.  How  strong  a  hold  this  reference  to  other  "consider- 
ations" than  the  Scriptures,  has  taken  upon  the  mind  of  the 
author  of  the  Tract,  and  how  reluctant  he  was  to  part  with  the 
"  extraneous"  argument  from  the  fathers,  is  shown  by  the  fact, 
that  he  again  recurs  to  it  in  the  "  Answer,"  and  presents  it  at 
much  greater  length.  Thus  on  pp.  18,  19,  at  the  very  close  of 
the  Answer,  we  are  presented  with  the  following  recurrence  to 
the  argument  from  other  considerations  than  the  Scriptures: — 

"One  word  more  concerning  the  'burden  of  proof,'  as  con- 
trasted with  the  '  presumptive  argument.'  The  Tract  claimed 
no  presumption  in  its  favor  in  seeking  for  the  scriptural  proofs 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  135 

of  Episcopacy.    We  do  —  a  presumption  founded  on  common 
sense,  as  indicated  by  common  practice.     Set  aside  parity  and 
Episcopacy,  and  then  look  at  other  systems  of  office,  both  reJigious 
and   civil,  and   you  find  several  grades  of  officers.     In  the 
Patriarchal  Church,  there  was  the  distinction  of  '  high  priest' 
and  '  priest.'    In  thie  Jewish  Church,  (common  sense  being,  in 
this  case   unquestionably,  divinely  approved,)  there  were  the 
high-priest,  priests,  and  Levites.    Among  Pagans  and  Mahomed- 
ans,  there  are  various  grades  in  the  office  deemed  sacred.     Civil 
governments  have  usually  governors,  a  president,  princes,  a  king, 
an  emperor,  &c.,  as  the  heads  of  the  general,  or  state,  or  provin- 
cial magistracies.     In  armies  and  navies,  there  is  always  a  chief. 
If  the  reviewer  should  claim  exceptions,  we  reply,  they  are  ex- 
ceptions only,  and  very  few  in  number.     The  general  ride  is 
with  us.     That  general  rule,  next  to  universal,  is,  that  among 
officers,  there  is  a  difference  of  power,  of  rights,  of  rank,  of  grade, 
call  it  what  you  will.    And  this  general  rule  gives  a  presumption 
that  such  will  also  be  the  case  in  the  Christian  Church.     We  go 
to  Scripture,  then,  with  the  presumptive  argument  fully  against 
parity.     If  we  should  find  in  Scripture  neither  imparity  nor 
parity,  still  common  sense  decides  for  the  former.     If  we  find 
the  tone  of  Scripture  doubtful,  on  this  point,  imparity  has  the 
advantage,  common  sense  turning  the  scale.     If  we  find  there 
intimations,  less  than  positive  injunctions,  in  favor  of  imparity, 
common  sense,  besides  the  respect  due  to  Scripture,  decides  for 
our  interpretation  of  them.     And  if  any  thing  in  Scripture  is 
supposed  to  prove  or  to  justify  parity,  it  must  be  very  explicit, 
to  overturn  the  suggestion  of  common  sense.     The  '  presump- 
tive argument,'  then,  is   clearly  with  us,  and  the  'burden  of 
proof  lies  on  parity.    Let  the  reviewer  peruse  the  Tract  again, 
bearing  in  mind  the  principles  laid  down  in  this  paragraph,  and 
he  will,  we  trust,  think  better  of  it." 

These  observations,  it  will  be  remembered,  are  made  by  the 
same  writer,  and  in  connexion  with  the  same  subject,  as  the 
declaration,  that  "  no  argument  ls  worth  taking  into  the  ac- 
count, that  has  not  a  palpable  bearing  on  the  clear  and  naked 
topic, — the  Scriptural  evidence  of  Episcopacy. ^^ 

Now,  against  the  principles  of  interpretation  here  stated,  and 
which  the  Tract  led  us  to  suppose  were  abandoned,  we  enter  our 
decided  and  solemn  protest.  The  question, — the  only  question 
in  the  case,  is,  whether  Episcopacy  "  has  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture?" (Tract,  p.  3.)  The  affirmation  is,  that  if  it  has  not  "it 
is  not  necessarily  binding."  (p.  3.)  The  principle  of  interpret- 
ation, which  in  the  Answer  is  introduced  to  guide  us  in  this 
inquiry,  is,  that  "the  fathers  are  consulted  on  the  subject, 
because  the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  describe,  forms 
an  historical  basis  for  interpreting  Scripture."  (Answer,  p.  3.)  In 
order  to  understand  the  bearing  of  this  rule  of  interpretation  it 
is  necessary  to  know  what  it  means.  A  "basis"  is  defined  to  be 
"the  foundation  of  a  thing;  that  on  which  a  thing  stands  or 


136  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO    A    REVIEW   OF 

lies;  that  on  which  it  rests;  the  ground-work  or  first  principle; 
that  which  supports."  Webster.  "An  historical  basis"  must  mean, 
therefore,  that  the  opinions,  or  facts  of  history,  that  is,  in  this 
case,  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  constitute  the  foundation,  the 
ground-work,  or  first  principle  of  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible; 
or  that  on  which  such  an  interpretation  rests,  or  by  which  it  is 
supported.    It  would  seem  to  follow,  therefore,  that  unless  we 
first  become  acquainted  with  this  "historical   basis,"  we  are 
wholly  in  the  dark  about  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  Bible, 
and  that  our  interpretation  is  destitute  of  any  true  support  and 
authority.    To  this  principle  of  interpretation,  in  this  case,  and 
in  all  others,  the  objections  are  obvious  and  numerous.    (1.)  Our 
first  objection  lies  against  the  supposed  necessity  of  having  any 
such  previously  ascertained  basis,  in  order  to  a  just  interpreta- 
tion of  the  oracles  of  God.    We  object  wholly  to  the  doctrine, 
that  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  interpreted  by  historical  facts  to  be 
developed  long  after  the  book  was  written.    The  great  mass  ot 
men  are  wholly  incompetent  to  enter  into  any  such  "  historical" 
inquiry ;  but  the  great  mass  of  men  are  not  unqualified  to  un- 
derstand the  general  drift  and  tenor  of  the  New  Testament. 
(2.)  The  statement  is,  that  "  the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which 
they  describe,"  is  to  be  the  basis  of  such  interpretation.    But 
who  knows  what  the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  describe 
is?    It  is  to  be  remembered,  that  the  question  is  not  respecting 
the  ministry  in  the  fourth  century  and  onward:  but  the  inquiry, 
— and  the  only  one  of  material  value  in  any  supposition, — per- 
tains to  the  fathers  previous  to  that  period.    And  there  every 
thing  is  unsettled.    Prelacy  claims  the  fathers  in  that  unknown 
age.    The  Papacy  claims  the  fathers  there.    Presbyterianism 
claims  the  fathers  there.    Congregationalism  and  Independency, 
too,  claim  them  there.    Every  thing  is  unsettled  and  chaotic. 
And  this  is  the  very  point  which  has  been  the  interminable 
subject  of  contention  in  this  whole  inquiry,  and  from  which  we 
hoped  we  had  escaped,  by  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  Tract. 
Yet  the  position  naw  advanced,  would  lead  us  again  into  all  the 
difficulties,  and  controversies,  and  jostling  elements,  and  contra- 
dictory statements,  which  have  always  attended  the  appeal  to 
the  fathers.    If  we  are  to  wait  until  we  have  ascertained  "  the 
fabric  of  the  ministry"  which  these  fathers  describe,  before  we 
have  a  "basis"  for  interpreting  Scripture,  we  may  close  the 
New  Testament  in  despair.    (3.)  This  canon  of  interpretation 
is  contrary  to  the  rule  which  Dr.  Onderdonk  has  himself  laid 
down  in  the  Tract  itself  (p.  3.)     In  that  instance,  the  authority 
of  the  Scriptures  was  declared  to  be  ample  and  final.    And 
throughout  the  Tract  there  is  a  manifest  indication  of  a  belief, 
that  the  Bible  is  susceptible  of  interpretation,  on  the  acknow- 
ledged rules  of  language,  and  the  principles  of  common  sense. 
We  hailed  such  a  manifestation,  not  only  as  auspicious  to  the 
cause  of  truth  in  regard  to  the  claims  of  Episcopacy,  but  because 
it  evinced  the  spirit  to  which  the  Church  mv^t  come,— of  a 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  137 

direct,  unqualified,  and  final  appeal  to  the  Word  of  God,— to 
determine  religious  doctrine.  To  that  standard  we  mean  to 
adhere.  And,  as  far  as  in  us  lies,  we  intend  to  hold  it  up 
to  the  view  of  men,  and  to  insist  on  the  great  truth  from 
which  nothing  shall  ever  divert  us,  and  from  which  we  fer- 
vently pray  the  Church  may  never  be  diverted,  that  we  are 
not  to  look  for  the  discovery  of  truth,  by  ascertaining  ^r^i  an 
"historical  basis,"  or,  a  set  of  instruments  by  which  we  are  to 
measure  and  adjust  the  proportions  of  truth  which  we  find  in  the 
revelation  of  God.  Without  any  design  to  disparage  or  under- 
value the  fathers,  whom  we  sincerely  reverence,  as  having  been 
holy,  bold,  and  venerable  men ;  without  any  blindness,  as  we 
believe,  to  the  living  lustre  of  that  piety  which  led  many  of  them 
to  the  stake ;  without  any  apprehension,  that  their  testimony, 
when  examined,  would  be  found  to  be  on  the  side  of  Episcopacy, 
—for  it  remains  yet  to  be  seen,  that  the  fathers  of  the  first  two 
centuries  ever  dreamed  of  the  pride  and  domination  which  sub- 
sequently crept  into  the  Church,  and  assumed  the  form  of  pre- 
lacy and  popery :  without  any  thing  to  influence  us,  so  far  as  we 
know,  from  any  of  these  "  extraneous"  sources,  we  intend  to  do 
all  in  our  power  to  extend  and  perpetuate  the  doctrine,  that  the 
ultimate  appeal  in  all  religious  inquiry,  is  to  be  the  Bible,  and  the 
Bible  only.  "  The  Bible,"  said  Chillingworth,  "  is  the  religion 
of  the  Protestants."  We  rejoice  to  hear  this  sentiment  echoed 
from  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania.  And  without  mean- 
ing to  insinuate,  that  this  sentiment  is  not  as  honestly  acted  on 
hj^  Episcopalians  as  by  any  other  denomination  of  Christians, 
we  may  add,  that  we  deem  the  first  sentence  of  the  Tract  worthy 
to  be  written  in  letters  of  gold,  on  the  posts  of  every  Episcopal 
sanctuary,  and  over  every  altar,  and  on  the  cover  of  every  "  Book 
of  Common  Prayer."  "  The  claim  of  Episcopacy  to  be  of  Divine 
institution,  and  therefore  obligatory  on  the  Church,  rests  funda- 
mentally  on  the  one  question,— Has  it  the  authority  ofScripturel 
If  it  has  not,  it  is  not  necessarily  binding?''  (4.)  Our  fourth 
objection  to  this  rule  of  interpretation  is,  that  it  is,  substantially, 
that  on  which  rests  the  papal  hierarchy.  We  do  not  know  that 
the  Papist  would  wish  to  express  his  principles  of  interpretation 
in  stronger  language,  than  that  "the  fathers  are  consulted  on 
this  subject,  because  the  fabric  of  the  ministry  which  they  de- 
scribe, forms  an  historical  basis  for  interpreting  Scripture."  To 
us  it  seems,  that  this  would  express  all  that  they  ask  ;  and  as  we 
doubt  not  that  Dr.  Onderdonk  would  shrink  from  any  approxi- 
mation to  the  Papacy,  quite  as  firmly  as  ourselves,  we  deem  it 
•lecessary  merely  to  suggest  the  consideration,  to  render  the 
objection  at  once  satisfactory  to  his  own  mind. 

We  object,  also,  to  the  principle  of  interpretation  advanced  on 
p.  18,  of  the  Answer,  which  we  have  already  quoted.  The  fact 
there  assumed,  is,  that  various  orders  of  men  are  observable  in 
civil  governments,  &c. ;  and  hence,  that  there  is  presumptive 
evidence,  that  such  orders  are  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures.  We 
12* 


138  REVIEW — ANSWER    TO    A  REVIEW    OF 

are  not  ignorant  of  the  purpose  for  which  this  fact  is  adduced. 
It  is  to  show,  that  the  *' burden  of  proof"  does  not  lie  so  entirely 
on  the  Episcopalian,  as  we  had  affirmed  in  the  Review.  We 
admit,  to  some  extent,  the  modifying  force  of  the  circumstances, 
so  far  as  the  ^'  burden  of  proof"  is  concerned.  But  it  merely 
lightens  the  burden ;  it  does  not  remove  it.  Presumption,  in 
such  a  case,  is  not  proof.  When  the  fact  affirmed  relates  to  a 
doctrine  of  the  Bible,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  say,  that  that  fact 
occurred  elsewhere,  and  therefore  it  must  occur  in  the  Bible.  It 
is  still  the  business  of  the  Episcopalian,  to  prove  his  affirmation 
from  the  New  Testament  itself,  that  bishops  are  superior  to  other 
ministers  of  the  Gospel,  in  ministerial  power  and  rights.  This 
is  Ms  affirmation ;  this  is  the  point  which  he  urges  ;  this  is  to  be 
made  out  from  the  Bible  only;  and  assuredly  the  fact,  that  there 
are  dukes,  and  earls,  and  emperors,  and  admirals,  and  nabobs, 
forms,  at  best,  a  i7ery5/i^/i^  presumption  in  favor  of  the  affirmation, 
that  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  consists  of  three  'orders.'  But 
our  objections  may  be  further  stated.  So  far  as  the  'presumption 
goes,  it  is  not  particularly  in  favor  of  EpiscopaA^y,  as  consisting 
in  THREE  order t  of  the  clergy.  For,  (1.)  The  fact  is  not,  that 
there  are  three  orders  observable  every  where.  It  is,  that  there 
are  many  orders  and  ranks  of  civil  officers  and  of  men.  (2.)  The 
presumption  drawn  from  what  has  taken  place,  would  be  rather 
in  favor  of  despotism,  and  the  papacy.  (3.)  The  presumption  is 
equally  met  by  the  doctrine  of  Presbyterianism  as  by  prelacy. 
Presbyterians  hold  equally  to  a  division  of  their  community  into 
various  ranks, — into  bishops,  and  elders,  and  deacons,  and  peo- 
ple. The  presumption,  drawn  from  the  fact  that  civil  society  is 
thus  broken  up,  is  as  really  in  their  favor,  as  in  favor  of  Epis- 
copacy. (4.)  The  Congregationalist  may  urge  it  with  the  same 
propriety.  His  community  registers  the  names  of  his  minister, 
and  deacons,  and  church,  and  congregation,  each  with  distinct 
privileges  and  rights.  If  Dr.  Onderdonk  should  reply  to  this, 
that  his  remark  referred  only  to  the  distinction  of  "  systems  of 
office,  both  religious  and  civil,"  (p.  18,)  and  "  that  among  officers, 
there  is  a  difference  of  power  and  rights,"  (p.  19,)  we  reply,  that 
the  distinction  of  officers  pertains  to  other  churches,  as  well  as 
the  Episcopal.  No  Non-episcopalian,  perhaps,  can  be  found, 
who  holds  to  a  parity  of  office.  He  will  refer,  at  once,  to  his 
minister,  to  his  elders,  to  his  deacons,  as  evincing  sufficient 
disparity,  to  meet  the  full  force  of  the  presumption  alleged  by 
Dr.  Onderdonk.  But  our  main  objection  here,  as  before,  is  to  the 
principle  of  interpretation.  We  respectfully  insist,  that  it  should 
be  laid  aside,  as  an  "extraneous  consideration,"  in  the  inquiry, 
whether  Episcopacy  "  has  the  authority  of  Scripture." 

In  our  review,  we  stated  that  the  burden  of  proof,  in  this  inquiry, 
was  laid  wholly  on  the  frtends  of  Episcopacy,  (p.  7.)  This  point 
was  so  obvious,  that  we  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  illustrate  it 
at  length.  Nor  do  we  now  intend  to  do  more  than  merely,  by 
adverting  to  it,  to  recall  it  to  the  attention  of  our  readers.    The 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  139 

author  of  the  "  Answer"  has  endeavored  to  remove  this  burden 
from  himself  and  his  friends,  (p.  4,  and  p.  18.)  This  he  has 
done,  by  attemptinsr  to  show  that  there  is  a  presumptive  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  Episcopacy  ;  which  presumption  throws  the 
task  of  proving  the  parity  of  the  clergy  on  those  who  advocate 
it.  Now  we  are  not  disposed  to  enter  into  a  controversy  on  thiij 
point.  To  us  it  seemed,  and  still  seems,  to  be  a  plain  case,  that 
where  it  was  affirmed  that  the  clergy  of  the  Christian  Church 
was  separated,  by  Divine  authority,  into  three  grades,  or  orders, 
and  that  one  of  those  orders  had  the  exclusive  right  of  ordina- 
tion, of  discipline,  and  of  general  superintendence;  it  could  not 
be  a  matter  requiring  much  deliberation,  to  know  where  rested 
the  burden  of  proof.  If  a  man  assumes  authority  over  an 
army,  demanding  the  subordination  of  all  other  officers  to  his 
will,  it  is  not  a  very  unreasonable  presumption,  that  the  burden 
of  proof  lies  with  him  ;  nor  would  it  be  the  obvious  course,  to 
expect  the  entire  mass  of  officers  to  show,  that  he  had  not 
received  such  a  commission.  We  shall,  therefore,  feel  ourselves 
to  be  pursuing  a  very  obvious  course,  if  we  do  not  recognise  the 
authority  of  Episcopal  bishops,  unless  there  is  proof  positive  of 
their  conimission.  We  may  add  further,  that  in  the  supposed 
case  of  the  commander  of  the  army  or  the  navy,  we  should  not 
regard  that  as  a  very  satisfactory  proof,  which  was  pursued  with 
as  little  directness  and  explicitness  as  are  evinced  in  the  argu- 
ment to  establish  the  original  domination  and  perpetuity  of  the 
prelatical  office.  And  in  this  connexion  we  may  remark,  that  it 
is  perfectly  immaterial,  as  to  the  main  point,  what  may  be  the 
opinion  of  the  man  who  calls  the  claim  in  question,  or  what 
may  be  the  particular  denomination  to  which  he  is  attached. 
Whether  he  is  an  Independent,  a  Presbyterian,  or  a  Congrega- 
tionalist,  it  may  be  equally  true,  that  the  bishop  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  is  unable  to  make  out  his  claims  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  only  material  point,  in  which  all  other  denomina- 
tions are  agreed,  is,  that  the  ministers  of  the  New  Testament  are 
on  an  equality,  in  the  respect  under  consideration ;  that  the 
power  of  ordaining,  and  administering  discipline,  and  of  super- 
intending the  concerns  of  tjie  Church,  is  intrusted  to  them,  as 
equals,  in  opposition  to  the  exclusive  and  exalted  assumptions  of 
a  few,  who  claim  the  right  to  deprive  them  of  these  powers,  and 
to  make  their  ministrations  null  and  void.  And  when  claims  of 
this  order  are  advanced, — claims  designed  to  dispossess  the  great 
mass  of  the  ministry  throughout  the  world,  of  the  right  of  trans- 
mitting their  office  to  others  ;  of  exercising  government  and  dis- 
cipline In  their  own  pastoral  charges;  of  superintending  and 
controlling  the  affairs  of  the  particular  portion  of  the  Church 
universal,  with  which  they  are  specifically  intrusted;  when 
claims  like  these  are  presented,  lending  to  degrade  them  from 
their  office,  to  annihilate  their  authority,  and  to  leave  their  charges 
without  a  ministry ;— -we  may  respectfully  insist,  that  the  proof 
of  this  should  be  drawn,  by  no  circumlocution,  from  the  Bible. 


140  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO    A    REVIEW   OP 

We  wish  to  see,  with  great  pertinency,  the  chapter,  and  the 
verse:  we  can  with  difficulty  resist  the  impression  that  it  should 
be  done  totidem  verbis,  or  at  least,  so  nearly  so,  that  there  could 
be  no  possibility  of  mistake. 

We  may  here  remind  our  readers  of  the  precise  points  which 
Episcopacy  is  called  upon  to  make  out.  The  first  is,  that  the 
apostles  were  "  distinguished  from  the  elders,  because  they  were 
superior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and  rights."  (Tract,  p.  15.) 
The  second  is,  that  this  distinction  "  was  so  persevered  in,  as  to 
indicate  that  it  was  a  permanent  arrangement."  (Tract,  p.  23.) 
These  are  independent  propositions.  One  by  no  means  follows 
from  the  other.  Should  the  first  be  admitted,  yet  the  second  is 
to  be  established  by  equally  explicit  and  independent  proof. 
Nay,  the  second  is  by  far  the  most  material  point,  and  should, 
as  we  shall  show,  be  fortified  by  the  most  irrefragable  arguments. 
The  third  point,  indispensable  to  the  other  two,  is,  that  there  is 
no  evidence  in  the  New  Testament,  that  presbyters,  or  elders, 
discharged  the  functions  which  are  now  claimed  for  bishops ;  that 
is,  that  they  either  (1.)  ordained,  or  (2.)  exercised  discipline,  or 
(3.)  exerted  a  general  supervision.  (Tract,  p.  11.)  Unless  then 
it  is  shown,  that  not  one  of  these  functions  was  ever  performed 
by  presbyters,  the  Episcopal  claim  fails  of  support,  and  must  be 
abandoned.  These  are  independent  positions,  and  a  failure  in 
one,  is  a  failure  in  the  whole. 

To  a  cursory  review  of  what  can  be  said  on  these  points,  we 
now  propose  to  call  the  attention  of  our  readers. 

The  first  claim  asserted,  is,  that  the  apostles  were  "  distin- 
guished from  the  elders,  because  they  were  superior  to  them,  in 
ministerial  power  and  rights."  (Tract,  p.  15.)  The  points  of 
their  alleged  superiority,  are,  exclusive  ordination,  exclusive 
discipline,  exclusive  confirmation,  and  exclusive  right  of  general 
superintendence.  The  question  is,  whether  this  is  the  nature  of 
the  superiority  with  which  the  apostles  were  intrusted  ;  or, 
which  is  the  same  thing,  were  these  the  purposes  for  which  they 
were  set  apart  to  the  apostolic  office,  and  for  which  they  loere 
called  apostles?  Dr.  Onderdonk  affirms  it ;  we  take  the  liberty, 
most  respectfully,  of  calling  for  explicit  proof  of  it,  from  the 
New  Testament. 

His  direct  proof  is  contained  in  a  nut-shell.  It  consists  of  one 
expression  of  Scripture,  (Acts  xv.  2, 4,  6,  22 ;  xvi.  4,)—"  Apostles 
and  elders,"  "  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren ;"  and  a  note 
on  p.  12,  of  the  Tract,  and  in  the  reply  expanded  to  more  than 
two  pages,  showing  that,  in  his  apprehension,  they  administered 
discipline.  As  this  is  the  basis  on  which  the  whole  fabric  is 
reared,  and  as  it  embraces  the  very  gest  of  the  "  Answer,"  we 
shall  be  pardoned  for  adverting  to  it  with  some  particularity. 

We  may  then  inquire,  why  the  apostles  were  distinguished 
from  the  elders,  or  presbyters?  Dr.  Onderdonk  affirms,  that  it  was 
because  they  were  "superior  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 
The  argument  on  this  subject,  from  the  New  Testament,  is,  that 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTCRE.  141 

the  two  classes  of  men  are  distinguished  from  each  other,  (Acts 
XV.  2,  4,  6,  22  ;  xvi.  4,)  by  the  following  expressions  ;  "  apostles 
and  elders,"  "apostles,  and  elders,  a«J  brethren."  Now  in  re- 
gard to  this  proofs  we  beg  leave  to  mai^e  the  following  remarks : — 

(1.)  That  it  is  the  ordy  direct  passage  of  Scripture,  which  Dr.  O. 
is  able  to  adduce,  on  the  subject  of  the  alleged  superiority  of  the 
apostles.  Its  importance,  in  his  view,  may  be  seen  from  the 
fact,  that  it  is  not  merely  the  only  proof,  but,  that  it  is  repeated 
not  less  than  five  times,  in  the  space  of  less  than  a  single  page  of 
the  Tract,  (pp.  14, 15,)  and  that  it  occupies  a  similar  prominence 
in  the  Answer.  The  Tract  has  been  written  four  years.  Dili- 
gent research  during  that  time,  it  would  be  supposed,  might  have 
led  to  the  discovery  of  some  other  text,  that  had  a  bearing  on 
the  point.  But  the  matter  still  rests  here.  There  is  no  other 
text ;  and  the  fabric  is  to  be  sustained  on  the  solitary  expression, 
"  apostles  and  elders,"  "  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren." 

(2.)  What  does  this  passage  prove?  It  proves  this,  and  no 
more,  that  there  was  a  distinction  of  some  sort  between  the 
apostles  and  elders,  which  is  a  point  of  just  as  much  importance, 
as  when  we  affirm  that  one  class  were  called  apostles  and 
another  called  elders.  But  it  is  difficult  for  us  to  see  how  this 
determines  any  thing  respecting  the  reasons  of  the  distinction. 
In  Ephesians  iv.  11,  the  Apostle  affirms  that  God  gave  some, 
apostles;  and  some,  prophets;  a7id  some,  evangelists;  and 
some,  pastors  and  teachers.  Here  a  distinction  is  made  out. 
But  is  the  nature  of  the  distinction  thereby  ascertained  ?  I  speak 
of  guineas,  and  doubloons,  and  guilders.  I  affirm  a  distinction, 
indeed;  but  is  its  nature  ascertained?  Have  I  determined  that 
the  guinea  is,  therefore^  superior  in  weight  or  value  to  the 
others  ? 

(3.)  We  have  never  denied  that  there  was  a  distinction 
between  the  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren.  The  very  fact 
that  they  had  the  name  apostles,  shows  that  there  must  have 
been  some  distinction,  or  some  reason  why  they  were  so  called. 
Unusual  discernment,  or  labored  argument,  surely,  are  not 
necessary  to  perceive  this.  But  the  very  point  is,  what  is  the 
nature  of  this  distinction?  And  this  is  to  be  settled,  not  by  the 
use  of  the  word,  but  by  the  statement  in  the  New  Testament ; 
and  it  is  incumbent  on  the  Episcopalian  to  show  by  proof-texts, 
that  it  was  because  the  apostles  were  superior  in  the  power  of 
ordination,  of  confirmation,  of  discipline,  and  of  general  super- 
intendence of  a  diocese.  Dr.  Onderdonk  affirmed^  that  the 
name  was  not  so  given,  because  they  were  appointed  by  Christ 
personally;  nor  because  they  had  seen  the  Lord  after  his  resur- 
rection ;  nor  because  they  had  the  power  of  working  miracles  : 
and  then  observed,  that  "  it  followed,  or  would  not  be  question- 
ed, that  it  was  because  they  were  superior  in  ministerial  power 
and  rights."  (Tract,  p.  15.)  It  seems  not  to  have  occurred  to 
him,  that  they  could  be  appointed  to  be  witnesses  of  his  entire 
ministry^  including  the  fact  of  his  resurrection  as  a  main  point. 


142  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO    A    REVIEW    OP 

We  took  the  liberty,  therefore,  of  examining  this  matter,  as  very- 
material  to  the  argument.  We  proved,  (1.)  That  in  the  original 
appointment  of  the  Apostles,  there  was  no  reference  to  their  supe- 
riority in  the  powers  of  ordination,  discipline,  &c.  (Review,  p.lO.) 
This  position  we  supported  by  the  three  separate  accounts  of 
Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke.  (2.)  That  no  such  thing  occurred  in 
the  instructions  of  our  Lord,  after  his  resurrection  from  the 
dead.  This  also  we  confirmed,  by  an  examination  of  the  testi- 
mony of  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke,  in  neither  of  whose  gospels 
was  there  found  a  vestige  of  such  instructions.  (Review,  p.  10.) 
(3.)  That  there  was  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament, 
any  account  that  what  Dr.  0.  affirmed  as  the  peculiarity  of  the 
apostolic  office,  was  known  to  the  writers.  This  conclusion  we 
rested  upon  our  own  examination,  and  the  fact  that  Dr.  O.  had 
not  adduced  any  such  passage.  (4.)  That  the  reason  of  the 
appointment  to  the  apostolic  office  was  expressly  q^rmed ;  and 
that  it  was  not  that  which  Dr.  0.  supposed  it  to  be.  We 
showed,  (a)  that  it  was  expressly  affirmed  in  the  original 
appointment,  (Luke  xxiv.  48;  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  19,)  that  they 
should  be  witnesses  of  these  things  ;  (Review,  p.  12  ;)  (b)  that 
this  was  expressly  provided  for  in  the  case  of  the  election  of  one 
to  fill  the  place  vacated  by  Judas ;  (Acts  i.  21,  22 ;)  (c)  that 
this  was  the  account  which  the  Apostles  uniformly  gave  of  the 
design  of  their  appointment;  (see  p.  13;)  (d)  that  the  same 
thing  was  again  expressly  provided  for  in  the  case  of  the  Apos- 
tle Paul,  and,  that  in  order  to  a  qualification  for  that  office,  he 
was  permitted  to  "see  the  Just  One,"  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  (Acts  xxii. 
14;)  and,  (e)  that  he  himself  expressly  appeals  to  the  fact,  as  a 
proof  that  he  was  fully  invested  with  the  apostolic  office.  (1  Cor. 
ix.  1,  2.)  (See  Review,  p.  15.)  In  the  course  of  the  argument, 
we  adduced  not  less  than  twenty  explicit  passages  of  Scripture, 
bearing  directly  on  the  point,  and  proving,  beyond  dispute,  that 
this  was  the  design  of  the  appointment  to  the  apostolic  office. 
Our  purpose  in  this  was  evident.  It  was  to  show,  that  the  pecu- 
liarity of  the  apostolic  office  was  of  such  a  nature  that  it  could 
not  be  transmitted  to  distant  generations ;  but  that  it  had  a  spe- 
cific, yet  very  important  design,  which,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
must  cease. 

With  deep  interest,  therefore,  we  opened  the  "  Answer,"  to 
ascertain  how  this  array  of  scriptural  argument  was  met.  We 
did  not  deem  it  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  there  would  be 
some  new  attempt  to  show,  that  the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic 
office  was  to  ordain;  that  the  passages  of  Scripture  on  which 
we  had  relied  were  irrelevant;  or,  that  other  passages  might  be 
adduced  in  proof  of  what  Dr.  O.  had  affirmed  to  be  the  pecu- 
liarity of  the  apostolic  office,  and  which  we  had  respectfully 
denied.  Our  readers  will  join  with  us  in  our  '  amazement,^  to 
find  the  following  as  the  result  of  an  examination  of  the 
"Answer." 

(1.)  A  solemn,  and  somewhat  pompous  re-adducing  of  the 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTDRE.  143 

expression,  (Acts  xv.,)  "the  apostles  and  elders,"  "  the  apostles, 
ami  elders,  and  brethren  ;"  (Answer,  p.  7 ;)  a  passage  main- 
taining still  its  solitary  dignity,  and  reposing  in  the  "Answer," 
as  it  had  in  the  "Tract,"  in  its  own  lonely  grandeur.  We  could 
not  restrain  our  '  amazement,'  that  no  other  passages  were  even 
referred  to,  on  this  material  point ;  and  we  came  to  the  conclu- 
sion, that  we  had  reached  an  end  of  the  argument,  so  far  as 
direct  Scripture  proof  was  concerned. 

(2.)  We  found  a  notice  of  our  extended  array  of  proof-texts, 
showing  what  was  the  design  of  the  apostolic  appointment,  of  a 
character  so  remarkable  that  we  shall  quote  it  entire. 

"The  reviewer,  in  order  to  show  what  he  thinks  was  the 
point  in  which  the  apostles  excelled  the  elders,  in  the  matter  in 
question,  dwells  largely  on  the  fact  that  they  were  special  wit- 
nesses of  our  Lord's  resurrection;  and  with  the  help  of  capital 
and  italic  letters,  he  has  certainly  made  a  showy  argument. 
But  nobody  denies  that  they  were  the  special  witnesses,  or,  that 
they  were  distinguished  from  the  elders,  as  well  as  from  others 
called  apostles, — the  Tract  gave  due  attention  to  both  these  parti- 
culars. The  point  is,  Was  this  distinction  the  one  that  led  to 
the  expression,  'apostles  and  elders?'  Surely  not.  Among 
those  apostles  was  Barnabas,  and  perhaps  Silas,  (Acts  xiv.  14 ; 
XV.  2,  4,  22  ;  1  Thess.  i.  1 ;  ii.  6,)  neither  of  whom  was  a  special 
witness  of  the  resurrection.  Besides,  the  expressions  '  apostles 
and  elders,'  '  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren,'  are  used 
with  immediate  reference  to  the  council  at  Jerusalem,  and  the 
reviewer  is  more  acute  than  we  pretend  to  be,  if  he  can  say 
why,  in  a  council  acting  on  questions  concerning  '  idols,  blood, 
things  strangled,  and  licentiousness,'  the  special  witnesses  of 
the  resurrection  should,  as  such,  have  peculiar  authority.  We 
really  think  the  Tract  argues  with  more  consistency  when  it 
says  that  the  apostles  were  ministerially  above  the  elders." 
Answer,  p.  16. 

Here,  it  will  be  observed,  there  is  no  notice  taken  of  the  texts 
which  we  had  adduced,  as  irrelevant,  or  unsatisfactory  in  number, 
or  as  unfairly  interpreted.  Dr.  Onderdonk,  if  he  was  the  writer  of 
the  Answer,  deemed  it  an  ample  notice  of  those  texts  to  remark, 
that  "  with  the  help  of  capital  and  italic  letters,  he  (the  review- 
er,) had  certainly  made  a  showy  argument."  (Answer,  p.  16.) 
That  our  argument  was  thus  noticed,  was,  indeed,  to  us  a  mat- 
ter of  '  amazement.'  It  was,  however,  an  indication,  of  which 
we  were  not  slow  to  avail  ourselves,  and  the  hold  upon  which 
we  shall  not  be  swift  to  lose,  that  our  proof-texts  were  ad  rem, 
and  that  they  settled  the  question.  When  all  that  the  Assistant 
Bishop  of  Pennsylvania  deems  it  proper  to  say  of  our  array  of 
more  than  twenty  explicit  declarations  of  the  Word  of  God,  is, 
that  by  the  help  of  capitals  and  italics,  they  constitute  a 
"SHOWY  argument,"  (we  mean  no  disrespect,  when  we  dis- 
play the  word  in  a  showy  form,)  we  deem  the  conclusion  to  be 
inevitable,  that  our  texts  are  just  what  we  intended  they  should 


144  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW    OF 

be,— that  they  settled  the  question,— and,  to  use  an  expression 
from  the  favorite  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  we  "rejoice 
for  the  consolation."  Acts  xv.  31. 

(3.)  Though  we  were  not  met  by  any  new  proof-texts,  or  by 
any  answer  to  our  own,  we  were  referred  to  the  sentiments  of 
the  following  distinguished  men,  viz.  the  late  Dr.  Wilson,  Dr. 
Miller,  Dr.  Campell,  Matthew  Henry,  ^- the  divines  who  argued 
with  Charles  I.  in  the  isle  of  Wight,"  and  Calvin,  to  prove,  that 
the  apostles  were  superior  to  the  elders,  and  the  evangelists. 
(Answer,  p.  10.)  Respecting  these  authorities,  we  may  be  per- 
mitted to  remark,  (1.)  that  we  shall  probably  not  yield,  out  of 
regard  to  their  names,  to  any  persons.  With  us,  they  have  all 
the  authority  which  uninspired  men  can  ever  be  allowed  to  have. 
The  writer  of  the  Review  may  be  permitted  to  remark,  perhaps, 
that  he  has  occasion  of  peculiar  respect  for  two  of  those  venera- 
ble men.  By  one,  —  whose  superior,  in  profound  powers  of 
reasoning,  in  varied  and  extensive  learning,  and  in  moral  worth, 
he  believes,  is  not  now  to  be  found  among  the  living,  in  any 
American  church, — he  was  preceded  in  the  office  which  he  now 
holds.  At  the  feet  of  the  other,  it  has  been  his  privilege  to  sit, 
for  nearly  four  years,  and  to  receive  the  instructions  of  wisdom 
from  his  lips  ;  and,  whatever  skill  he  may  have  in  conducting 
this  argument  on  the  government  of  the  churches,  he  owes  to 
the  "basis"  which  was  laid  by  those  instructions.  Whatever 
may  be  said,  therefore,  of  these  authorities  adduced  in  the 
"  Answer,"  will  not  be  traced  to  want  of  respect  for  these  vene- 
rable names.  But,  (2.)  we  may  remark,  that  in  this  argument, 
the  authorities  of  uninspired  men  are  to  be  laid  out  of  the  ac- 
count. With  all  due  deference  to  them,  and  to  Dr.  O.,  we  must 
be  permitted  to  believe,  that  their  authority  belongs  to  the  "  ex- 
traneous considerations,"  as  well  as  that  of  the  opinion  of  Cran- 
mer,  (Answer,  p.  5,)  which,  by  common  consent,  it  had  been 
agreed  to  lay  out  of  the  controversy.  (See  Tract,  pp.  3-10 :  Review, 
p.  5.)  Our  wonder  is,  that  after  the  disclaimer  of  relying  on 
these  extraneous  considerations,  in  the  Tract,  the  author  of  the 
Answer  should  have  occupied  nearly  two  pages,  with  the  state- 
ments of  these  distinguished  men.  (3.)  Their  authority,  even 
when  adduced,  does  not  bear  on  the  point  before  us.  The  ques- 
tion is,  whether  the  apostles  were  superior  to  other  ministers  of 
the  Gospel,  in  ministerial  power  and  rights?  that  is,  in  the 
power  of  ordination,  confirmation,  discipline,  and  general  super 
intendence.  7'heir  authorities  adduced,  prove  only,  that  in  the 
judgment  of  these  venerable  men,  they  were  superior  in  some 
respects,  to  evangelists  and  teachers ;  or,  that  there  was  a  dis- 
tinction between  them, — a  point  on  which  we  make  no  denial. 
On  the  only  question  in  debate,  they  make  no  affirmation.  On 
the  claims  set  up  by  Episcopalians,  that  the  apostles  were  supe- 
rior in  ordination^  &c.,  they  concede  nothing,  nor  did  they  believe 
a  word  of  it. 

Having  thus  noticed  the  "Answer"  on  this  part  of  our  argu- 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED   BY  SCRIPTURE.  145 

mcnt,  we  shall  dismiss  it.  We  do  it  by  simply  reminding  oui 
readers,  that  the  solitary  text  which  undisputed  learning,  talent^ 
and  zeal  have  discovered,  during  a  period  of  more  than  four 
years,  since  the  discussion  first  commenced, — the  lonely  Scripture 
proof  of  the  sweeping  claims,  that  the  apostles  only  had  the 
power  of  ordination,  and  that  this  was  the  peculiarity  of  the 
office, — stands  forth  in  the  Tract,  and  in  the  Answer:  "the 
apostles  and  elders,"  "  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren  P' 

But  the  author  of  the  "Answer"  complains,  (p.  11,)  that  we 
did  not  give  the  '  whole'  of  his  argument  on  the  subject ;  and  he 
refers  to  a  note  on  p.  12  of  the  Tract,  designed  to  show  that 
the  apostles  had  the  power  of  administering  discipline,  and  that 
therefore  they  were  superior  to  the  presbyters,  or  held  a  more 
elevated  grade  of  office.    The  note  is  this  :— 

"That  the  apostles  alone  ordained,  will  be  proved.  In  1  Cor. 
iv.  19-21 ;  V.  3-5 ;  2  Cor.  ii.  6 ;  vii.  12 ;  x.  8 ;  xiii.  2,  10 ;  and 
1  Tim.  i.  20 ;  are  recorded  inflictions  and  remissions  of  disci- 
jdine  performed  by  an  apostle,  or  threatenings  on  his  part, 
although  there  must  have  been  elders  in  Corinth,  and  certainly 
were  in  Ephesus." 

This  note  he  expands  into  an  argument,  which  constitutes  the 
most  material  part  of  the  "  Answer."  It  is  incumbent  upon  us 
to  examine  it,  and  to  ascertain  how  far  it  goes  to  settle  the  point 
under  discussion.  Before  examining  the  particular  cases  re- 
ferred to,  we  would  remind  our  readers  that  the  purpose  for 
which  they  are  adduced,  is  to  show  that  the  apostles  were 
superior  to  presbyters  in  power  and  rights  ^  and  the  alleged 
proof  is,  that  they  administered  discipline.  To  hear  on  the 
case,  therefore,  the  passages  must  prove  not  only  that  thetf 
exercised  discipline,  but,  (1.)  That  they  did  it  as  apostles,  or  in 
virtue  of  the  apostolic  office;  (2.)  That  they  did  it  in  churches 
where  there  were  presbyters ;  and,  (3.)  That  presbyters  never 
administered  discipline  themselves.  The  second  point  here 
adverted  to,  is  all  that  the  author  of  the  "Answer"  feels  himself 
called  upon  to  make  out.  (Answer,  pp.  11-13.)  Now  in  regard  to 
this  point  of  the  proof,  we  make  the  following  general  remarks: 
(1.)  There  were  certainly,  in  all,  fourteen  apostles;  and  if  we 
may  credit  the  writer  of  these  pamphlets,  and  reckon  Timothy, 
and  Barnabas,  and  Sylvanus,  and  Apollos,  and  Andronicus,  and 
Junia,  and  Titus,  and  perhaps  half  a  dozen  others,  there  were 
somewhat  more  than  a  score  invested  with  this  office ;  yet  it  is 
remarkable,  that  the  only  cases  of  discipline  referred  to,  as  going 
to  prove  the  superiority  of  the  whole  college  of  apostles,  are 
cases  in  which  the  Apostle  Paul  only  was  concerned.  (2.)  There 
are  accounts  in  the  New  Testament  of  perhaps  some  hundreds 
of  churches ;  and  yet,  we  meet  with  no  instance  of  the  kind  of 
discipline  relied  on,  except  in  the  single  churches  of  Corinth 
and  Ephesus.  It  is  incredible,  that  there  should  have  been  no 
other  cases  of  discipline  in  these  churches.  But  if  there  were, 
the  presumption  is,  that  they  were  settled  without  the  interven- 
13 


146  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW   OP 

tion  of  an  apostle.  (3.)  These  very  cases,  as  we  shall  presently 
show,  were  cases  in  which  Paul  administered  the  rod  of  discipline 
in  the  churches  where  Titus  and  Timothy, — apostles  also  and 
bishops, — were  present,  by  the  showing  of  the  author  of  the 
"Answer,"  and  thus  were  acts  of  manifest  disrespect  for  the 
authority  of  those  prelates.  And  if  the  fact,  that  the  discipline 
was  administered  where  there  were  presbyters,  (Answer,  pp. 
11,  12,)  proves  that  the  Apostle  was  superior  to  them,  the  same 
fact  proves  that  he  was  superior  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  The 
course  of  the  argument  urged  by  the  author  of  the  "Answer," 
would  be,  that  Paul  was  disposed  to  assume  the  whole  power 
into  his  own  hands,  and  to  set  aside  the  claims  alike  of  bishops 
and  presbyters.  It  has  a  very  undesirable  looking  toward  the 
authority  claimed  by  the  Papacy. 

The  two  cases  alleged  as  proof  that  the  apostles  only  had  the 
power  of  administering  discipline,  are  those  at  Corinth  and  at 
Ephesus.  Paul  wrote  fourteen  epistles,  and  wrote  them  to 
eight  churches.  In  all  these  epistles,  and  in  all  the  numerous 
churches  of  which  he  had  the  charge,  (2  Cor.  xi.  28,  "  the  care 
of  all  the  churches,")  these  are  the  only  instances  in  which  he 
was  called,  so  far  as  appears,  to  exercise  discipline.  We  now 
inquire,  whether  he  did  it  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the 
apostles  only  had  this  power  ? 

The  first  case  alleged,  is  that  at  Corinth.  "In  1  Cor.  iv. 
19-21,  &c.,  are  recorded  inflictions  and  remissions  of  discipline 
performed  by  an  apostle,  or  threatenings  on  his  part;  although 
there  must  have  been  elders  at  Corinth."  (Note  z,  Tract,  p.  12.) 
The  argument  here  is,  that  there  must  have  been  elders  at 
Corinth,  and  yet  that  Paul  interposed  over  their  heads  to  inflict 
discipline.  This  is  thewhole  of  the  argument.  (SeeAnswer,  p.  11.) 

In  reply  to  these,  we  observe  :  That  there  were  elders,  teach- 
ers, ministers,  instructers  in  Corinth,  we  think  is  placed  beyond 
a  question,  by  the  argument  of  the  "  Answer,"  and  by  the  nature 
of  the  case.  This  fact  we  do  not  intend  to  call  in  question. 
The  argument  of  the  "  Answer"  from  this  fact,  we  state  in  the 
author's  own  words: — 

"  Yet,  without  noticing  these  elders  in  the  matter,  so  far  as  the 
epistles  show — though  they  doubtless  were  noticed  and  consulted, 
as  much  as  courtesy  and  their  pastoral  standing  made  proper — 
without  putting  the  matter  into  their  hands,  or  even  passing  it 
through  their  hands,  Paul  threatens,  inflicts,  and  remits  discipline 
among  the  people  of  their  charge.  This  is  a  *  ministerial'  act. 
And  Paul's  doing  it  himself,  instead  of  committing  it  to  the  elders, 
shows  that  he,  an  apostle,  was  '  superior  to  them  in  ministerial 
power  and  rights.'  "    p.  11. 

Further,  if  there  were  elders  there,  there  was  an  "  apostle," 
a  prelatical  bishop,  according  to  the  Tract,  there  also.  This  is 
shown  by  a  quotation  from  the  epistle  itself,  relating  to  this  very- 
time,  and  in  immediate  connexion  with  the  case  of  discipline. 
(1  Cor.  iv.  17.)    "  For  this  cause,  [that  is,  on  account  of  your 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  147 

divided  and  contending  state,]  have  I  sent  unto  you  Timotheus, 
who  is  my  beloved  son,  and  faithful  in  the  Lord,  who  shall 
bring  you  into  remembrance  of  my  ways  which  be  in  Christ, 
as  I  teach  every  where  in  every  church."  Now,  as  it  will  not 
be  pretended  by  Episcopalians  that  Timothy  was  not  an  "apos- 
tle," and  as  it  is  undeniable  that  he  was  at  that  time  at  Corinth, 
the  argument  will  as  well  apply  to  set  aside  his  right  to  admin- 
ister discipline  in  the  case,  as  that  of  the  elders.  Borrowing, 
then,  the  words  of  the  Answer,  we  would  say :  "  Yet  without 
noticing"  this  apostle  "  in  the  matter,  so  far  as  the  epistles 
show, —  though"  he  was  "doubtless  noticed  and  consulted,  as 
much  as  courtesy  and  his"  apostolical  "standing  made  proper; 
without  putting  the  matter  into"  his  "  hands,  or  even  passing  it 
through"  his  "  hands,  Paul  threatens,  inflicts,  and  remits  disci' 
pline.  This  is  a  *  ministerial'  act.  And  Paul's  doing  it  himself, 
instead  of  committing  it  to"  Timothy,  "shows,  that  he,  an  apos- 
tle, was  superior  to"  him  "  in  ministerial  power  and  rights." 
Now  no  Episcopalian  will  fail  to  be  at  once  deeply  impressed 
with  the  fallacy  of  this  reasoning,  in  regard  to  the  "  apostle" 
and  "  bishop"  Timothy.  And  yet,  it  is  manifestly  just  as  perti- 
nent and  forcible  in  his  case,  as  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  the  An- 
swer in  regard  to  the  elders  of  Corinth.  It  cannot  be  pretended 
that  a  difference  existed,  because  the  "  elders"  were  permanently 
located  there,  and  Timothy  not ;  for  the  argument  of  the 
"  Tract"  and  the  "  Answer"  is,  that  the  apostles  were  superior 
as  apostles,  and  therefore  it  made  no  difference  on  this  point, 
whether  they  were  at  Corinth,  or  at  Crete,  or  at  Antioch ;  they 
were  invested  with  the  apostolic  office  every  where.  Our  con- 
clusion from  this  instance,  and  from  the  fact  which  we  have 
now  stated,  is,  that  there  was  some  peculiarity  in  the  case  at 
Corinth,  which  rendered  the  ordinary  exercise  of  discipline  by 
presbyters  difficult ;  which  operated  equally  against  any  interfer- 
ence by  Timothy  ;  and  which  called  peculiarly  for  the  inter- 
position of  the  founder  of  the  church,  and  of  an  inspired  apostle, 
— for  one  clothed  with  authority  to  inflict  a  heavy  judgment, 
here  denominated  "  delivering  unto  Satan  for  the  destruction  of 
the  flesh,"  (1  Cor.  v.  5,) — a  power  which  could  be  exercised  by 
none  then  in  Corinth.  Our  next  inquiry  is,  whether  there  are 
any  reasons  for  this  opinion  ?  The  following  we  believe  satis- 
factory : — 

(1.)  Paul  had  founded  that  church,  (Acts  xviii.  1-11,)  and 
his  interference  in  cases  of  discipline  would  be  regarded  as  pecu- 
liarly'proper.  There  would  be  a  natural  and  obvious  deference 
to  the  founder  of  the  church,  which  would  render  such  an  inter- 
position in  the  highest  degree  appropriate.  We  are  confirmed 
in  this  view,  because  he  puts  his  authority  in  this  very  case  on 
such  a  fact,  and  on  the  deference  which  was  due  to  him  as  their 
spiritual  father.  1  Cor.  iv.  15  —  "For  though  ye  have  ten 
thousand  instrncters  in  Christ,  yet  have  ye  not  many  fathers; 
for  in  Christ  Jesus  /  have  begotten  you  through  the  Gospel," 


148  REVIEW— ANSWER  TO  A  REVIEW  OP 

(2.)  The  circumstances  of  the  church  at  Corinth  were  such, 
evidently,  as  to  render  the  ordinary  exercise  of  discipline  by 
their  own  elders  impossible.  They  were  distracted ;  were  rent 
into  parties ;  were  engaged  in  violent  contention ;  and  the 
authority,  therefore,  of  one  portion  of  the  "teachers,"  and 
"  instructers,"  would  be  disregarded  by  the  other.  Thus  no 
united  sentence  could  be  agreed  upon ;  and  no  judgment  of  a 
party  could  restore  peace.  An  attempt  to  exercise  discipline 
would  only  enkindle  parly  animosity,  and  produce  strife.  (See 
chap.  i.  11-17.)  So  great,  evidently,  was  the  contention,  and  so 
hopeless  the  task  of  allaying  it  by  any  ordinary  means,  that 
even  Timothy,  whom  Paul  had  sent  for  the  express  purpose 
of  bringing  them  into  remembrance  of  his  ways,  (1  Cor.  iv.  17,) 
could  have  no  hope,  by  his  own  interference,  of  allaying  it. 
It  was  natural  that  it  should  be  referred  to  the  founder  of  the 
church,  and  to  one  who  had  the  power  of  punishing  the  offender. 

(3.)  It  is  material  to  remark,  that  this  was  not  an  ordinary 
case  of  discipline.  It  was  one  that  required  the  severest  exer- 
cise of  authority,  and  in  a  form  which  was  lodged  only  with 
those  intrusted  with  the  power  of  inflicting  disease,  or,  as  it 
is  termed,  "  of  delivering  to  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the 
flesh."  (1  Cor.  v.  5.)  Such  cases  would  inevitably  devolve  upon 
the  Apostles,  as  clothed  with  miraculous  power;  and  such, 
beyond  all  controversy,  was  this  case.  It  therefore  proves 
nothing  about  the  ordinary  mode  of  administering  discipline, 
'^'his  case  had  reached  to  such  a  degree  of  enormity ;  it  had 
been  suffered  to  remain  so  long ;  it  had  become  so  aggravated, 
that  it  was  necessary  to  interpose  in  this  awful  manner,  and  to 
decide  it.    Yet, 

(4.)  The  Apostle  supposes  that  they  ought  to  have  exercised 
the  usual  discipline  themselves.  This  is  evident,  we  think, 
from  a  comparison  of  the  following  passages :  1  Cor.  v.  9,  10, 11, 
12,  with  V.  2.  In  these  verses  it  is  supposed,  that  they  did  them- 
selves usually  exercise  disciplme.  Paul  (verse  9)  gave  them 
the  general  direction,  not  to  keep  company  with  fornicators; 
that  is,  to  exercise  discipline  on  those  who  did.  In  verse  11,  he 
asks  them,  in  a  manner  showing  that  the  aflirmative  answer  to 
the  question  expressed  their  usual  practice,  whether  they  did  not 
"judge  those  that  were  within?"  that  is,  whether  they  did  not  ordi- 
narily exercise  discipline  in  the  church  ?  And  in  verse  2,  he  sup- 
poses that  it  ought  to  have  been  done  in  this  case;  and  as  it  had 
not  been  done  by  them,  and  the  affair  had  assumed  special  enor- 
mity, he  exercised  the  miraculous  power  intrusted  to  him,  by 
inflicting  on  the  offender  a  grievous  disease.  (Verses  4,  5;  comp. 
1  Cor.  xi.  30.) 

(5.)  It  is  evident  that  other  churches  did,  in  ordinary  cases, 
exercise  discipline  without  the  intervention  of  an  apostle.  Thus 
the  church  in  Thessalonica,  where  Episcopacy,  with  all  its  zeal, 
has  never  been  able  even  to  conjecture  that  there  was  a  diocesan 
bishop,  was  directed  to  exercise  discipline  in  any  instance  where 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  149 

the  command  of  the  inspired  Apostle  was  not  obeyed.  (2  Thess. 
iii.  14.)    We  shall  soon  make  this  point  incontestible. 

(6.)  The  circumstances  of  the  early  churches  were  such  as  to 
make  this  apostolic  intervention  proper,  and  even  indispensable, 
without  supposing  that  it  was  to  be  a  permanent  arrangement. 
They  were  ignorant  and  feeble.  They  had  had  little  opportunity 
of  learning  the  nature  of  Christianity.  In  most  cases,  their  found- 
ers were  with  them  but  a  few  weeks,  and  then  left  them  under 
the  care  of  elders  ordained  from  among  themselves.  (Comp.  Acts 
xiii.  xiv.  et  passim.)  Those  elders  would  be  poorly  qualified 
to  discharge  the  functions  of  their  oiRce ;  and  they  would  be 
but  little  elevated,  in  character  and  learning,  above  the  mass  of 
the  people.  The  churches  must  be  imperfectly  organized ;  unac- 
customed to  rigid  discipline;  exposed  to  many  temptations; 
easily  drawn  into  sin ;  and  subject  to  great  agitation  and  excite- 
ment. Even  a  great  many  subjects  which  may  now  be  consi- 
dered as  settled,  in  morals  and  religion,  would  appear  to  them  open 
for  debate ;  and  parties,  as  at  Corinth,  would  easily  be  formed, 
(Comp.  Acts  xiv.  xv. ;  Rom.  xiv.;  1  Cor.  viii.)  In  these  circum- 
stances, how  natural  was  it  for  these  churches  to  look  for  direc- 
tion to  the  inspired  men  whq  had  founded  them  ?  and  how 
natural,  that  such  persons  should  interpose  and  settle  important 
and  difficult  cases  of  discipline?  And  after  these  obvious 
considerations,  are  we  to  suppose  that  the  fact  that  the  Apostle 
Paul,  in  two  cases,  and  two  such  cases  only  are  recorded,  exer- 
cised an  extraordinary  act  of  discipline,  is  to  be  regarded  as 
proof  that  this  power  appertained  only  to  the  apostolic  ofiice, 
and  was  to  be  a  permanent  arrangement  in  the  Church  ?  We 
confess  our  '  amazement,'  that  but  two  cases  of  apostolic  inter- 
ference are  mentioned  during  the  long  and  active  life  of  Paul ; 
and  we  regard  this  as  some  evidence  that  the  churches  were 
expected  to  exercise  discipline,  and  actually  did  so,  on  their  own 
members. 

(7.)  We  are  confirmed  in  our  views  on  this  point  from  what 
is  known  to  take  place  in  organizing  churches  in  heathen  coun- 
tries at  the  present  day.  Since  we  commenced  this  article  we 
were  conversing  with  one  of  the  American  missionaries  station- 
ed at  Ceylon.*  In  the  course  of  the  conversation  he  incidentally 
remarked  that  the  missionaries  were  obliged  to  retain  the  exer- 
cise of  discipline  in  their  own  hands;  and  that,  although  the 
mission  had  been  established  more  than  fifteen  years,  yet  the 
exercise  of  discipline  had  never  been  intrusted  to  the  native 
converts.  He  further  observed,  that  the  missionaries  had  been 
endeavoring  to  find  persons  to  whom  they  could  intrust  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  church,  as  elders,  but  that  as  yet  they  had  not  found 
one.  The  native  converts  were  still  ignorant  of  the  laws  of 
Christianity  ;  they  had  sp  little  influence  in  the  church ;  they 
were  so  partial  to  each  other,  even  when  in  fault ;  that  thus  far, 

♦  Rev.  Mr.  Winslow. 
13* 


350  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW   OF 

discipline,  though  somewhat  frequent  acts  of  discipline  were 
necessary,  was  retained  in  the  hands  of  the  missionaries.  Sub- 
stantially the  same  thing  must  have  occurred  in  the  early 
churches  in  Asia  Minor,  in  Syria  and  Greece.  Will  Dr.  Onder- 
donk  infer,  that  because  Mr.  Winslow,  Mr.  Poor,  and  Dr.  Scud- 
der,  in  Ceylon,  have  found  it  necessary  to  retain  the  jpower  of 
administering  discipline,  that  therefore  they  are  diocesan  bish- 
ops, and  that  they  do  not  contemplate  that  the  churches  in  Cey- 
lon shall  be  other  than  prelatical  ?  If  not,  his  argument  in  the 
case  of  the  church  in  Corinth  can  be  allowed  no  weight. 

We  have  now  done  with  this  instance  of  discipline.  We 
have  shown  that  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  can  be 
accounted  for,  without  any  such  conclusion  as  that  to  which  the 
author  of  the  Tract  is  desirous  to  conduct  it.  We  turn,  there- 
fore, to  his  other  case  of  discipline  in  the  church  at  Ephesus. 

The  case  is  thus  stated  in  1  Tim.  i.  20—"  Of  whom  is  Hymeneus 
and  Alexander;  whom  /  have  delivered  unto  Satan,  that  they 
may  learn  not  to  blaspheme."  His  argument  is,  that  "it  is  the 
Apostle  who  inflicts  the  discipline ;  the  elders  do  not  appear  in 
the  matter.  And  discipline  is  a  ministerial  function,  and  excom- 
munication its  highest  exercise."  (Answer,  p.  13.)  In  reply  to 
this  case,  we  make  the  following  observations. 

(1.)  It  occurs  in  a  charge  to  Timothy,— Timothy,  on  the 
supposition  of  Episcopalians,  an  apostle  co-ordinate  with  Paul 
himself;  Timothy,  prelate  of  Ephesus.  If  Timothy  was  an 
apostle  and  diocesan  bishop,  and  if  the  exercise  of  discipline 
pertained  to  an  apostle  and  bishop,  why  did  Paul  take  the  matter 
into  his  own  hands?  Why  not  refer  it  to  Timothy,  and  repose 
sufficient  confidence  in  him  to  believe  that  he  was  competent  to 
fulfil  this  part  of  his  Episcopal  office  ?  Would  it  now  be  regard- 
ed as  courteous,  for  the  bishop  of  Ohio  to  interpose  and  inflict 
an  act  of  discipltee  on  some  Hymeneus  or  Alexander  of  the 
diocese  of  Pennsylvania?  And  would  there  be  as  cordial  sub- 
mission of  the  bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  as  there  was  of  the  bish- 
op of  Ephesus?  If  Timothy  was  at  Ephesus,  and  if  the  case  of 
discipline  occurred  at  the  time  which  Dr.  O.  supposes,  this  case 
appears  to  our  humble  apprehension,  very  much  as  if  Paul 
regarded  Timothy  as  neither  an  apostle  nor  a  prelate. 

(2.)  If  the  exercise  of  tjie  authority  in  this  case  of  discipline 
by  Paul  proves  that  the  presbyters  at  Ephesus  had  no  right  to 
administer  discipline  ;  for  the  same  reason,  it  proves  that  Timo- 
thy had  not  that  right.  By  the  supposition  of  Episcopalians, 
Timothy  was  there  as  well  as  the  presbyters.  The  assumption 
of  the  authority  by  Paul  proves  as  much  that  it  did  not  belong 
to  Timothy,  as  that  it  did  not  belong  to  the  presbyters. 

(3.)  This  was  a  case  such  as  occurred  at  Corinth.  It  was 
not  an  ordinary  act  of  discipline ;  it  was  one  which  supposed 
the  infliction  of  the  judgment  of  God  by  a  miraculous  agency. 
"Whom  I  have  delivered  unto  Satan,  that  they  may  learn  not 
to  blaspheme."    Compare  this  account  with  the  record  of  the 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  151 

in  Corinth,  (1  Cor.  v.  5,)  and  it  is  evident' that  this  waar 
not  an  ordinary  act  of  discipline,  but  was  such  as  implied  the 
direct  infliction  of  the  judgment  of  the  Almighty.  That  such 
inflictions  were  intrusted  to  the  hands  of  the  Apostles  we  admit; 
and  that  Paul,  not  Timothy,  inflicted  this,  proves  that  the  latter 
was  neither  an  apostle  nor  a  prelate. 

(4.)  Dr.  Onderdonk  supposes  that  this  occurred  at  Bphesus, 
and  while  Timothy  was  there.  But  what  evidence  is  there  of 
this?  It  is  neither  affirmed  that  the  transaction  was  at  Ephe- 
sus,  nor  that  Timothy  was  there.  His  argument  proceeds  on 
the  assumption,  that  Timothy  was  bishop  there  when  this  epis- 
tle was  written,  and  that  the  case  of  discipline  occurred  there. 
And  the  proof  of  this,  would  probably  be  the  subscription  at  the 
end  of  the  second  epistle,  and  the  "  tradition  of  the  elders." 
But  that  subscription  has  no  authority ;  and  it  is  not  to  be 
assumed,  but  proved,  that  Timothy  was  there  in  the  capacity  of 
a  prelate,  or  there  at  all  when  this  epistle  was  written  to  him. 
The  demonstration  that  a  bishop  only  exercised  discipline,  it 
must  be  admitted,  rests  on  slender  grounds,  if  this  be  all. 

(5.)  But  if  this  case  did  occur  at  Ephesus,  what  evidence  is 
there,  that  it  occurred  at  the  time  that  Bishop  Onderdonk  sup^ 
poses?  The  account  in  the  epistle  to  Timothy  by  no  means 
Axes  the  time  of  the  transaction.  "  Whom  I  have  delivered 
(irap/^wica)  uuto  Satan,"  &c.  It  was  already  done ;  and  the  pre- 
sumption is,  that  it  was  done  when  Paul  was  himself  present 
with  them.  It  is  morally  certain  that  it  was  not  an  act  of  disci- 
pline that  was  then  to  be  done. 

Our  readers  have  now  the  whole  case  before  them.  Episco- 
pacy aflSrms,  that  prelates  onty  have  the  power  of  administering 
discipline.  It  affirms  that  the  churches  are  prohibited  from 
exercising  it  on  their  own  members;  that  those  appointed  to 
preach  the  Gospel,  to  administer  the  sacraments,  and  to  be  pas- 
tors of  the  flock,  and  who  may  therefore  be  supposed  to  under- 
stand the  cases  of  discipline,  and  best  qualified  to  administer  it, 
have  no  right  to  exercise  this  act  of  government  over  their  own 
members ;  but  that  this  exclusive  prerogative  belongs  to  a 
stranger,  and  a  foreigner,  a  prelatical  bishop,  whom  the  church- 
es seldom  see,  and  who  must  be  in  a  great  degree  unacquainted 
with  their  peculiar  wants  and  character.  All  power  of  disci- 
pline in  an  entire  diocese  of  some  hundreds  of  churches,  is  to  be 
taken  away  from  the  members  themselves,  and  from  the  pastors, 
and  lodged  in  strange  hands,  and  committed  to  a  solitary,  inde- 
pendent man,  who,  from  the  nature  of  the  circumstances,  can 
have  little  acquaintance  with  the  case,  and  possess  few  of  the 

Sualifications  requisite  for  the  intelligent  performance  of  this 
uty.  And  does  the  reader  ask,  What  is  the  authority  for  this 
assumption  of  power?  Why  are  the  churches  and  their  pastors 
disrobed  of  this  office,  and  reduced  to  the  condition  of  humble 
dependents  at  the  feet  of  the  prelate  ?  Let  him,  in  astonish- 
ment, learn.    It  is  not  because  there  is  any  command  to  this 


152  REVIEW— ANSWEH  TO   A   REVIEW   OP 

effect  in  the  New  Testament;  it  is  not  because  there  is  any 
declaration,  implying  that  it  would  be  so;  it  is  not  by  any 
affirmation  that  it  ever  wan  so.  This  is  the  reason,  and  this  is 
all:— The  Apostle  Paul  in  two  cases,  and  in  both  instances  ovei 
the  heads  of  presbyters,  (and  over  tlie  head  of  Bishop  Timothy, 
too,)  delivered  men  "to  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh, 
that  they  might  learn  not  to  blaspheme;"  and,  therefore, 
Bishop  Onderdonk,  and  Bishop  Griswold,  and  Bishop  Doane, 
only  have  power  to  administer  discipline  in  all  the  churches  in 
Pennsylvania,  and  in  the  Eastern  Diocese,  and  in  New-Jersey ; 
and,  THEREFORE,  all  the  acts  of'discipline  exercised  by  Presbyte- 
rians, Methodists,  Baptists,  &c.,  in  Pennsylvania  and  New- 
Jersey,  and  by  the  Congregationalists  of  New-England,  are  null 
and  void.  The  disposal  of  such  antecedents  and  consequents, 
may  be  safely  left  to  all  who  hold,  that  "no  argument  is  worth 
taking  into  the  account,  that  has  not  a  clear  and  palpable  bear- 
ing on  the  naked  topic, — the  scriptural  evidence  of  Episcopacy," 
(Tract,  p.  3,) 

But  we  have  not  done  with  this  subject.  We  are  now  prepared 
to  show,  not  only  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  apostles 
exclusively  exercised  discipline,  but  that  there  is  positive  proof 
that  all  the  acts  of  discipline  were  in  fact  exercised  by  the  pres- 
byters of  the  churches.  To  put  this  matter  to  rest,  we  adduce 
the  following  passages  of  Scripture  : 

Acts  XX.  17,  28—"  From  Miletus,  Paul  sent  to  Ephesus,  and 
called  for  the  presbyters  of  the  church,  and  said  unto  them  : 
Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops,  {litiaK6-itovs)  to  feed,  (Troi/iamtv 
like  good  shepherds,  to  provide  for,  watch  over,  and  govern,) 
the  church  of  God."  It  would  be  easy  to  show,  that  the  word 
translated  feed  includes  the  whole  duty  which  a  shepherd  exer- 
cises over  his  flock,  including  all  that  is  needful  in  the  super- 
vision, government,  and  defence  of  those  under  his  care.  Proof 
of  this  may  be  found  in  the  following  passages  of  the  New 
Testament,  where  the  word  occurs  iji  the  sense  of  ruling,  or 
governing,  including  of  course  the  exercise  of  discipline ;  for 
how  can  there  be  government,  unless  there  is  authority  for 
punishing  offenders?  Matt.  ii.  6;  John  xxi.  16;  1  Pet.  v.  2; 
Rev.  ii.  27.  "  And  he  shall  rule  them  {T:Qiyiavsi  airoOf)  with  a  rod 
of  iron ;"  an  expression  which  will  be  allowed  to  imply  the 
exercise  of  discipline.  Rev.  xii.  5;  xix.  15.  Comp.  Ps.  ii.  9;- 
xxiii.  1 ;  xxvii.  12 ;  xlvii.  13.  And  the  Iliad  of  Homer  may  be 
consulted,  passimi,  for  this  use  of  the  word.  See  particularly, 
1.263;  11.85. 

1  Pet.  V,  2,  3  —  "The  presbyters  who  are  among  you  I 
exhort,  who  am  also  a  presbyter.  Feed  (roj^aVare)  the  flock  of 
God  which  is  among  you,  taking  the  oversight  (sTtiaKonowTes  dis- 
charging the  duty  of  bishops,)  thereof,  not  by  constraint,  but  will- 
ingly," &c.  Here  the  very  work  which  is  claimed  for  prelates, 
is  enjoined  on  presbyters;  the  very  name  which  prelates  assume, 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED   BY  SCRIPTURE.  153 

is  given  to  presbyters;  and  Peter  ranks  himself  as  on  a  level 
with  them  in  the  office  of  exercising  discipline,  or  in  the  govern^ 
mentofthe  church.  It  is  perfectly  obvious,  that  the  presbyters 
at  Ephesus,  and  the  presbyters  whom  Peter  addressed,  were 
intrusted  with  the  pastoral  care  to  the  fullest  extent.  It  is 
obvious,  that  they  were  required  to  engage  in  all  the  work  requi' 
site  in  instructing,  directing,  and  governing  the  flock.  And  it 
is  as  obvious,  that  they  were  intrusted  with  a  power  and  an 
authority  in  this  business,  with  which  presbyters  are  not  intrust- 
ed by  the  canons  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  "We  respectfully 
ask.  Whether  the  bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  or  New-Jersey,  would 
now  take  1  Pet.  v.  2,  3,  for  a  text,  and  address  the  "  priests,"  or 
"  second  order  of  clergy,"  in  these  words,  without  considerable 
quafification — "  The  presbyters  who  are  among  you  I  exhort, 
who  am  also  a  presbyter.  Feed  (woiiidvaTt)  the  flock  of  God, 
hrieKOTtSvvrts  discharging  the  duty  of  bishops  over  it,  not  by  con- 
straint, neither  as  being  lords  over  God's  heritage. 

Heb.  xiii.  7—"  Remember  them  which  have  the  rule  over  you: 
T&v fJYovniwv ifiuv,  YOCR  RULERS."  Versc  17 — "Obey  them  that 
have  the  rule  over  you."  (UeWccet  to7s  fiyoviiivotf  {nfiv.}  That  bish- 
ops are  here  referred  to,  no  one  will  pretend.  Yet  the  ofl5ce  of 
ruling  certainly  implies  that  kind  of  government  which  is  co»- 
cemed  in  the  administration  of  discipline. 

1  Thess.  V.  12— "We  beseech  you,  brethren,  to  know  them 
which  labor  among  you,  and  are  over  you  in  the  Lord."  («aj 

rpoiarafilvovs  ifiiov  h  Kvpt<u. )      1  Tim.  V.  17 — '^  Let  the  PRESBYTERS  that 

rule  well  (irpo««rT«T«5)  be  counted  worthy  of  double  honor." 
There  can  be  no  question  that  these  passages  are  applied  to 
presbyters.  We  come,  then,  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  terms 
which  properly  denote  government  and  discipline,  and  on 
which  alone  any  claim  for  the  exercise  of  authority  can  be 
founded, — the  terms  expressive  of  governing,  of  feeding,  of 
ruling,  of  taking  the  oversight,  are  all  applied  to  presbyters  j  that 
the  churches  are  required  to  submit  to  them  in  the  exercise  of 
that  oflice;  and  that  the  very  term  denoi'ing  Episcopal /uris- 
diction,  is  applied  to  them  also.  We  ask  for  a  solitary  passage 
which  directs  apostles,  or  prelates,  to  administer  discipline;  and 
we  leave  the  case  of  discipline,  therefore,  to  the  common  sense 
of  those  who  read  the  New  Testament,  and  who  believe  that 
presbyters  had  any  duties  to  perform. 

We  have  now  examined  the  essential  point  in  Episcopacy ; 
for,  if  the  claims  which  are  arrogated  for  bishops  are  unfounded, 
the  system,  as  a  system,  is  destroyed.  We  have  examined  the 
solitary  passage  urged  directly  in  its  favor,  "  the  apostles  and 
elders,"  "the  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren  ;"  and  the  claims 
set  up  in  favor  of  their  exclusive  right  to  administer  discipline  ; 
and,  if  we  mistake  not,  we  have  shown,  that  hitherto  so  stupend- 
ous claims  have  never  been  reared  on  so  narrow  a  basis. 

The  next  point  which  it  is  indispensable  for  Episcopalians  to 
make  out  from  the  Bible,  is,  tliat  it  was  intended,  that  the  stipe- 


154  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO    A    REVIEW   OP 

riority  in  ministerial  rank  and  poioer,  should  be  a  permanent 
a/rrans^ement.  This,  it  will  be  perceived,  is  a  distinct  and  inde- 
pendent inquiry.  It  by  no  means  follows  of  necessity,  even  if 
all  that  the  Episcopalians  claim  for  the  apostles  were  conceded; 
for  it  might  be  true  that  the  apostles  had  this  superiority,  and  yet 
that  it  was  designed  merely  as  a  temporary  arrangement.  As  the 
"  Answer"  has  added  nothing  material  to  the  argument  of  the 
Tract,  on  this  subject,  we  shall  not  long  be  detained  on  this 
point.  The  sole  argument  in  the  "  Tract"  is  drawn  from  the 
claim  that  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus,  and  Titus  of  Crete; 
and  that  the  "angels"  of  the  seven  churches  were  prelatical 
bishops,  (pp.  23-29.)  In  our  review,  we  examined  these  seve- 
ral claims  at  length.  (Review,  pp.  17-31.)  As  the  writer  of 
the  Answer  has  not  thought  proper  to  notice  our  argument 
here,  we  are  left  to  the  presumption,  that  an  obvious  or  satisfac- 
tory reply  was  not  at  hand.  The  train  of  our  reasoning,  then, 
we  shall  take  the  liberty  of  regarding  as  unbroken  and  untouch- 
ed. The  only  appearance  of  argument  on  this  subject,  in  the 
Answer,  is  found  on  p.  14,  and  it  is  this :  that  its  author  sup- 
poses our  argument  to  have  been,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  had 
a  temporary  and  extraordinary  office,  because  they  were  "mi- 
gratory ;"  and,  as  many  of  the  presbyters, — Apollos,  for  exam- 
ple,—were  migratory,  hence  it  would  follow,  that  the  office  of 
presbyter,  also,  was  temporary.  Now,  in  reply  to  this,  we 
observe,  that  although  we  did  affirm  the  appointment  of  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  to  have  been  "  temporary,"  yet  we  were  not  so 
weak  as  to  suppose  that  it  was  becaiise  they  were  migratory. 
That  this  fact  indicated  that  they  had  not  a  permanent  pre- 
latical office,  we  assuredly  did,  and  still  do,  believe.  But  we 
showed, — in  a  manner  which  we  marvel  the  author  of  the  An- 
swer did  not  notice, — that  Timothy  was  sent  to  Ephesus  for  a 
special  purpose,  and  that  he  was  to  execute  that  office  only  until 
Paul  returned.  (Review,  pp.  22,  24.  1  Tim.  i.  3;  iv.  13;  1  Tim. 
iii.  14,  15.)  The  same  thing  we  showed,  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, to  be  the  case  with  regard  to  Titus.  (Review,  p.  26.  See 
Titus,  i.  6-9  ;  iii.  10,  12.)  We  never  so  far  forgot  ourselves,  as 
to  suppose  that  because  Timothy  and  Tiius  were  "  migratory," 
that,  therefore,  they  were  not  bishops.  We  put  the  matter  on 
wholly  different  ground  ;  and  in  the  course  of  our  argument,  we 
quoted  no  less  than  forty-six  passages  of  the  New  Testament, 
containing,  we  believe,  all  that  can  be  supposed  to  bear  on  the 
point.  We  cannot  withhold  the  expressions  of  our  "amaze- 
ment," that  an  author,  whose  express  object  was  to  "  test  Epis- 
copacy by  Scripture,"  should  have  left  unnoticed  this  argument. 
Never  was  there  invented  a  shorter  and  more  convenient  mode 
of  avoiding  such  an  argument,  than  by  saying  of  something  which 
we  never  intended  to  urge,  that  the  whole  of  it  was  founded  on 
the  fact  of  their  being  "  migratory."  We  would  now  remind 
the  author  that  our  argument  was  not  of  such  a  character;  but  it 
wasj  (1.)  That  Timothy  is  not  even  called  an  apostle ;  (2.)  That 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED   BY   SCRIPTORE.  155 

he  is  expressly  distinguished  from  the  apostles ;  (3.)  That 
there  is  no  evidence  that  he  was  bishop  of  Ephesns;  (4.)  That 
the  Scripture  affirms  he  was  sent  to  Ephesus  for  a  special 
and  temporary  purpose ;  (Review,  p.  22 ;)  and,  (5.)  That  the 
epistles  to  Timothy  contain  full  proof  of  the  falsehood  of  any 
such  supposition  as  that  he  was  a  prelatical  bishop;  because, 
(a)  there  are  but  two  orders  of  officers  in  the  church,  spoken  of 
in  those  epistles ;  (6)  they  contain  no  description  of  his  own 
office  as  a  prelate ;  (c)  they  contain  full  and  explicit  directions 
on  a  great  variety  of  other  topics,  of  far  less  importance  than 
the  office  which,  according  to  Episcopacy,  was  to  constitute  the 
very  peculiarity  of  the  church  ;  and  not  a  word  respecting  his 
brother  bishops,  then  existing,  or  any  intimation  that  such  an 
order  of  men  ever  would  exist. 

In  regard  to  Titus,  we  proved,  (1.)  That  he  was  left  in  Crete, 
for  the  special  purpose  of  completing  a  work  which  Paul  had 
begun;  (2.)  That  Paul  gave  him  express  directions,  when  he 
had  done  that,  to  come  to  him  ;  and,  (3.)  That  he  obeyed  the 
command,  left  Crete,  and  became  the  travelling  companion  of 
Paul ;  and  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  suppose,  that 
he  ever  returned  to  Crete. 

In  regard  to  the  "  angels''  of  the  seven  churches,  we  showed, 
that  the  whole  of  Dr.  Onderdonk's  argument  was  a  mere 
assumption,  that  there  was  an  inferior  body  of  the  "  clergy  at 
large ;"  that  there  were  in  each  of  those  cities  more  churches  than 
one, — a  fact  which  should  be  proved,  not  assumed,— also,  that 
the  style  of  the  address  to  the  "  angel,"  was  that  of  the  "  angel 
of  the  church,"  evidently  referring  to  an  individual  congrega- 
tion, and  not  to  such  a  group  of  churches  as  constitute  a  modern 
diocese ;  and  that  the  application  of  the  term  "  angel,"  to  the 
pastor  of  a  single  church,  was  much  more  obvious,  and  much 
the  more  probab\£ supposition,  than  to  "the  formal,  unfrequent, 
and  in  many  instances,  stately  and  pompous  visitations  of  a 
diocesan  bishop."  (Review,  pp.  27-30.) 

To  this  argument  there  is  no  reply,  except  by  an  assumption 
that  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus;  that  the  same  thing  must 
be  presumed  to  exist  in  the  year  96 ;  and  that  the  "  elders"  at 
Ephesus  being  there  also,  and  being  ministers,  any  direction  to 
the  "  angel,"  must  suppose  that  he  was  superior  to  the  presby- 
ters. (Answer,  p.  17.)  Now  the  whole  of  this  argument  pro- 
ceeds on  the  supposition  that  the  elders  at  Ephesus  were 
ordained  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  a  distinct  rank  of  the  clergy, 
and  sustaining  the  same  office  as  the  "second  order"  in  the 
Episcopal  Church.  But  this  is  assuming  the  very  point  in 
debate.  In  our  review,  we  showed,  (p.  23,)  that  all  the  facts  in 
the  case  of  the  elders  at  Ephesus,  (Acts  xx.  17,  &c.,)  are  met 
by  the  supposition  that  they  were  ruling  elders,  or  persons 
appointed  to  govern,  guide,  and  secure,  the  spiritual  welfare  of 
the  church.  Oi>r  argument  is,  (1.)  That  Dr.  O.  admits,  that  the 
word  rendered  "feed,"  {minaheiv)  may  mean  to  rule:  (Tract, 


158  REVIEW — ANSWER  TO  A  REVIEW  OP 

pp,  24,  37.)  (2.)  That  the  idea  of  ruling^  is  the  one  which  is 
there  specijically  dwelt  on.  That  he  directs  them  to  "  feed,"  or 
exercise  the  office  of  a  shepherd  over  them,  that  is,  to  guards 
defend,  provide  for  them,  as  a  shepherd  does,  in  the  care  of  his 
ilock.  He  directs  them  to  watch  against  the  grievous  wolves 
which  should  come  in,  and  against  those  who  should  rise  up 
from  among  themselves,  to  secure  parties,  &c.  (3.)  There  is 
no  counsel  given  them  about  the  proper  mode  of  administering 
the  sacraments,  the  peculiar  duty  of  the  "second  order"  of 
clergy.  (4.)  There  is  no  expression  of  lamentation,  that  they 
had  not  a  prelatical  bishop ;  or  any  intimation  that  they  would 
80on  be  furnished  with  one.  (5.)  It  is  evidently  implied,  that 
the  number  of  these  elders  was  considerable.  They  are  address- 
ed as  such ;  and  yet  they  are  addressed  as  in  charge  of  one 
*'  flock,"  over  which  they  had  been  placed.  Now  it  is  incredi- 
ble, that  any  considerable  body  of  the  "  second  order  of  clergy" 
should  have  been  ordained  in  an  infant  church  like  Ephesus. 
And  it  is  equally  incredible,  that  z^Paul  had  so  ordained  them, 
he  should  have  set  them  over  one  flock,  in  a  single  city, — colle- 
giate "  rectors"  in  a  single  church  in  Ephesus,— under  a  "  dio- 
cesan" also,  of  the  single  "  flock,"  or  church  ;  a  diocesan  not 
then  present,  and  concerning  whom  not  the  slightest  hint  was 
dropped  by  Paul,  either  of  lamentation  or  promise.  So  that,  on 
the  whole,  one  knows  not  at  which,  to  be  most  surprised, — the 
number  of  assumptions  indispensable  to  the  purpose  of  "  en- 
throning" the  bishop  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  or  the  singular 
coolness  with  which  Episcopalians  urge  all  these  assumptions, 
as  if  they  were  grave  matters  of  historical  record. 

In  reference  to  the  term  "angel,"  as  used  in  the  Apocalypse, 
we  have  only  to  remark  further,  that  the  interpretation  which 
makes  it  refer  to  a  prelatical  bishop,  is  so  unnatural  and  forced, 
that  Episcopalians  are,  many  of  them,  themselves  compelled  to 
abandon  it.  Thus  Stillingfleet,  than  whom  an  abler  man,  and 
one  whose  praise  is  higher  in  Episcopal  churches,  is  not  to  be 
found  among  the  advocates  of  prelacy,  says  of  these  angels — "If 
many  things  in  the  epistles  be  denoted  to  the  angels,  but  yet  so 
as  to  concern  the  whole  body,  then,  of  necessity,  the  angel 
must  be  taken  as  a  representative  of  the  whole  body  ;  and  then, 
why  may  not  the  word  angel  be  taken  by  way  of  representa- 
tion of  the  body  itself,  either  of  the  whole  church,  or,  which  is 
far  more  probable,  of  the  consp.ssors,  or  order  of  presbyters  in 
that  church  ?  We  see  what  miserable,  unaccountable  arguments 
those  are,  which  are  brought  for  any  kind  of  government,  from 
metaphorical  or  ambiguous  expressions,  or  names  promiscuously 
used."  Irenicmn. 

In  regard  to  this  second  point,  which  it  is  incumbent  on  Epis- 
copalians to  make  out,  we  are  now  prepared  to  estimate  the 
force  of  these  arguments.  The  case  stands  thus.  (1.)  There  is 
no  command  in  the  New  Testament,  to  the  Apostles,  to  transmit 
the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office.     If  there  had  been,  the 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  157 

industry  of  Dr.  Onderdonk  would  have  called  it  to  our  attention. 
If  the  peculiarity  of  the  office  was  to  be  transmitted,  it  was 
required  that  such  a  command  should  be  given.     (2.)  There  is 
no  affirmation  that  it  would  be  thua  transmitted.    If  there  had 
been,  Dr.  O.'s  tract  would   not  have  been  so  barren  on  this 
point.   And  we  ask  him,  whether  it  is  credible,  that  the  Apostles 
were  bishops  of  a  superior  order,  and  that  it  was  designed,  that 
all  the  Church  should  be  subject  to  an  order  of  men,  "  superior 
in  ministerial  rank  and  power,'-  deriving  their  authority  from 
the  Apostles;  and  yet,  not  the  slightest  command  thus  to  trans- 
mit it,  and  not  the  slightest  hint  that  it  would  be  done  ?     We 
say  again,  Credat  Judceits  Apella  I     (3.)  It  was  impossible  that 
the  peculiarity  of  the  apostolic  office  should  he  transmitted. 
We  have  shown,  not  by  assumptions,  but  by  a  large  array  of 
passages  of  Scripture,  what  that  peculiarity  was, — to  bear  wit- 
ness to  the  great  events  which  went  to  prove  that  Jesus  was 
the  Messiah  :  we  have  been  met  in  this  proof,  by  the  calm  and 
dignified  observation,  that  this  was  a  "showy"  argument ;  and 
we  now  affirm,  that  the  peculiarity  of  that  office,  as  specified  by 
Jesus  Christ,    by  the  chosen  Apostles,   by  Paul,  and  by  the 
whole  college,   could   not   be  transmitted  ;  that  no  bishop  is, 
or   can  be,  a  witness^   in  the  sense   and  for  the  purpose  for 
which  they  were  originally  designated.   (4.)  We  have  examined 
the  case  of  Timothy,  of  Titus,  and  of  the  angels  of  the  churches. 
— the  slender  basis'on  which  the  fabric  of  Episcopal  pretension 
has  been  reared.     We  now  affirm,  (5.)  That,  should  we  admit 
all  that  Episcopalians  claim  on  each  of  these  points,  there  is 
not  the  slightest  proof,  as  a  matter  of  historical  record,  that  the 
Episcopal  office  has  been  transmitted  from  prelate  to  prelate ; 
but  that  the  pretended  line  has  been  often  broken,  and  that  no 
jury  would  give  a  verdict  to  the  amount  of  five  dollars,  on  proof 
so  slender  as  can  be  adduced  for  the  uninterrupted  succession 
of  prelates.    As  satisfactory  evidence  on  this  point,  we  repeat 
the  following  passage,  .contained  in  the  September  number  of 
this  journal: 

"  We  are  informed  by  many  ancient  historians,  and  very 
expressly  by  Bede,  in  his  famous  Ecclesiastical  History,  'That 
at  the  request  of  Oswald,  King  of  Northumberland,  certain  pres- 
byters came  (in  the  seventh  century)  from  Scotland  into  Eng- 
land, and  ordained  bishops;  that  the  abbot,  and  other  presbyters 
of  the  island  of  Hy,  sent  Aydan  for  this  express  purpose, 
declaring  him  to  be  worthy  of  the  office  of  bishop,  and  that  he 
ought  to  be  sent  to  instruct  the  unbelieving  and  the  unlearned.* 
He  informs  us,  that  '  those  presbyters  ordained  him  and  sent 
him  to  England  on  this  errand ;  and  that  Finan,  sent  from 
the  same  monastery  in  the  same  island,  succeeded  him  in  the 
Episcopal  office,  after  having  been  ordained  by  the  Scottish 
presbyters.' 

"  Upon  this  testimony  of  Bede,  Baxter  remarks,  '  You  will 
find  that  the  English  had  a  succession  of  bishops  by  the  Scottish 
14 


158  REVIEW — ANSWER  TO   A  REVIEW  OF 

presbyter's  ordination ^  and  there  is  no  mention  in  Bede  of  any 
dislike  or  scruple  of  the  lawfulness  of  this  course.'  The  learned 
Dr.  Doddridge  refers  us  to  Bede  and  Jones  to  substantiate  the 
fact  that,  'the  ordination  of  English  bishops  cannot  be  traced 
up  to  the  Church  of  Rome  as  its  original ;  that  in  the  year  668, 
the  successors  of  Austin,  the  monk,  (who  came  over  A.  D.  596,) 
bein^  almost  extinct,  hy  far  the  greater  part  of  the  bishops  were 
of  Scottish  ordination,  by  Aydan  and  Finan,  who  came  out  of 
the  Culdee  monastery  of  Columbanus,  and  were  no  more  than 
presbyter  &? 

"  And  is  it  verily  so,  that  the  Episcopal  blobd  was  thus  early 
and  extensively  contaminated  in  England  ?  Is  it  verily  so,  that 
when  the  effects  of  pious  Austin's  labors  had  become  almost 
imperceptible,  the  sinking  Church  was  revived  again  by  sending 
to  Scotland  for  presbyters  to  come  and  ordain  a  midtitude  of 
bishops?  Then  it  is  verily  a  fact,  that  Presbyterian  ordination 
is  one  of  the  sturdiest  pillars  that  support  the  vast  fabric  of  the 
Church  of  England.  No  matter  if  only  ten  bishops  were  thus 
ordained,  the  contamination  (if  it  be  one)  l-aving  been  imparted 
more  than  eleven  hundred  years  ago,  has  had  a  long  time  to 
diffuse  itself,  and  doubtless  has  dVffused  itself  so  extensively 
from  bishop  to  bishop,  that  not  a  single  prelate  in  Great  Britain 
can  prove  that  he  has  escaped  the  infection.  For  what  one  of 
them  can  tell  if  he  vvas  not  consecrated  by  bishops  who  were 
themselves  consecrated  by  bishops,  and  they  by  other  bishops, 
to  whom  all  the  ordaining  power  they  ever  had  was  transmitted 
from  the  presbyters  of  Scotland  7  But  this  is  not  the  whole  of 
the  evil-  As  no  one  bishop  can  trace  his  Episcopal  pedigree 
farther  back  perhaps  than  two  or  three  centuries,  so  he  cannot 
certainly  know  that  any  presbyter  on  whose  head  he  has 
imposed ,  hands,  lias  received  from  him  any  thing  more  than 
Presbyterian  ordination.  Nor  is  this  all  the  evil.  The  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  bishops  and  presbyters  in  America  are  in  the 
same  plight ;  for  I  am  told  that  all  their  authority  came  from 
England.  But  as  the  English  bishops  who  gave  it  lo  them 
could  not  tlien,  and  cannot  noiD,  cerininly  tell  whence  it  came, 
so  who  knows  but  all  the  Episcopal  ciergy  in  the  United  States 
of  America  are  originally  indebted  lo  the  hands  of  Elder 
Aydan  and  Elder  Finan  for  all  their  ministerial  powers  ?  I 
tremble  for  all  Protestant  Episcopal  churches  on  both  conti- 
nents, if  Presbyterian  ordination  be  not  valid  and  scriptural." 
(pp.  486,  487.) 

One  point  more  in  the  argument  for  Episcopacy  remains.  It 
is,  that  none  but  prelates  ordained.  It  is  incumbent  on  Episco- 
palians to  prove  this,  as  essential  to  their  argument.  For  if 
presbyters  or  elders  exercised  the  office  of  ordaining,  then  the 
main  point  claimed  for  the  superiority  of  bishops  is  unfounded. 
We  aim,  therefore,  to  show  that  there  is  positive  proof  that 
presbyters  did  ordain.  We  have  shown,  in  the  course  of  our 
argument,  that  they  exercised  the  office  of  discipline,  one  of  the 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  159 

things  claimed  peculiarly  for  bishops  ;  we  now  proceed  to  show 
thai  the  office  of  ordaining-  was  one  which  was  intrusted  to 
them,  and  which  they  exercised.  If  this  point  be  made  out,  it 
follows  still  further  that  the  peculiarity  of  the  office  of  the  apos- 
tles was  not  that  they  ordained,  and  that  the  clergy  of  the  New 
Testament  are  not  divided  into  "  three  orders,"  but  are  equal  in 
ministerial  rank  and  power.  The  argument  is  indeed  complete 
without  this:  for,  unless  Episcopalians  can  show,  by  positive 
proof,  the  superiority  of  their  bishops  to  the  right  of  ordination 
and  disciplme,  the  parity  of  the  clergy  follows  as  a  matter  of 
course. 

The  writer  of  these  articles  is  a  Presbyterian.  But  the  argu- 
ment does  not  require  that  he  should  go  largely  into  the  proof 
of  his  own  views  on  church  polity.  The  object  is  to  disprove 
Episcopacy.  If  this  is  disproved,  it  follows  that  the  clergy  are 
on  an  equality.  If  it  is  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  the  New 
Testament  is,  that  presbyters  were  to  ordain,  it  is  a  sufficient 
disposal  of  the  "feeble  claims  of  lay-ordination,"  and  of  all 
other  claims.  It  will  follow,  that  a  valid  ordination  is  that 
which  is  performed  in  accordance  with  the  direction  lh?it  pres- 
byters should  ordain.  What  particular  churches  besides  the 
Presbyterian,  accord  in  their  practice  with  the  direction,  it  is  not 
our  business  to  inquire.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  that  the 
Presbyterian  and  Congregational  churches  accord  with  that 
requirement,  and  follow  the  direction  of  the  New  Testament  in 
the  ordination  of  their  ministry  by  presbyters,  and  in  their  min- 
isterial equality.  This  is  all  the  reply  that  is  necessary  to  the 
train  of  reflections  in  the  "Answer."  (pp.  5,  6.)  We  have 
seen,  also,  that  Episcopal  ordination  is  valid,  not  because  it  is 
performed  by  a  prelate,  but  because  it  is,  as  we  remarked, 
(Review,  pp.  32,  33,)  in  fact  a  mere  Presbyterian  performance. 

In  proof  of  the  point  now  before  us,  therefore,  we  adduce 

1  Tim.  iv.  14— "Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which 
was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  presbytery."  Of  this  passage,  which,  to  the  common  sense 
of  mankind,  affirms  the  very  thing  under  discussion,  it  is  evi- 
dently material  for  Episcopalians  to  dispose;  or  their  claims  to 
exclusive  rights  and  privileges  are  for  ever  destroyed.  We 
shall,  therefore,  examine  the  passage,  and  then  notice  the  objec- 
tions to  its  obvious  and  common  sense  interpretation  alleged  by 
Dr.  Onderdonk. 

We  observe  then,  (1.)  That  the  translation  of  the  passage  is 
fairly  made.  Much  learned  criticism  has  been  exhausted,  to 
very  little  purpose,  by  Episcopalians,  to  show,  that  a  difference 
existed  between  "  with,"  (Mera)  in  this  place,  and  "  by,"  (<5<a)  in 

2  Tim.  i.  6.  It  has  been  said,  "that  such  a  distinction  may 
justly  be  regarded  as  intimating  that  the  virtue  of  the  ordaining 
act  flowed  from  Paul,  while  the  presbytery,  or  the  rest  of  that 
body  if  he  were  included  in  it,  expressed  only  cow5e?i^"  (Tract, 
p.  22.)    But  it  has  never  been  shown,  nor  can  it  be,  that  the. 


160  REVIEW — ANSWER  TO  A  REVIEW  OF 

preposition  "  with"  does  not  fairly  express  the  force  of  the  ori- 
ginal. The  same  observation  may  be  applied  to  the  word,  "  pres- 
bytery," (irpcalSvTepiov.)  It  denolcs  properly  a  body,  or  assembly 
of  elders,  or  presbyters.  In  Luke  xxii.  66,  it  is  applied  to  the 
body  of  elders  which  composed  the  Sanhedrim,  or  great  council 
of  the  Jews,  and  is  translated  "the  elders  of  the  people:"  to  irpta- 
^vripiov  Tov  Xaov.  See  also  Acts  xxii.  5 — "  ihe  estate  of  the  elders." 
The  word  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament  except 
in  the  passage  under  consideration.  Dr.  Onderdonk  has  endea- 
vored to  show  that  it  means  "  the  (rffice  to  which  Timothy  was 
ordained,  not  the  persons  who  ordained  him;  so  that  the  pas- 
sage would  read,  '  with  the  laying  on  of  hands  to  confer  the 
presbyterate,^  or  presbytership,  or  the  clerical  office  j"  and 
appeals  to  the  authority  of  Grotius  and  Calvin  in  the  case.  (Tract, 
pp.  19,  20.)  In  regard  to  this  interpretation  we  observe,  (1.) 
That  if  this  be  correct,  then  it  follows,  that  Timothy  was  not  an 
apostle,  but  an  elder, — he  was  ordained  to  the  office  of  the  pres- 
byterate,  or  the  eldership.  Timothy,  then,  is  to  be  laid  out  of 
the  college  of  the  apostles,  and  reduced  to  the  humble  office  of  a 
presbyter.  When  prelacy  is  to  be  established  by  showing  that 
the  office  of  apostles  was  transmitted,  Timothy  is  an  apostle 5 
when  it  is  necessary  to  make  another  use  of  this  same  man,  it 
appears  that  he  was  ordained  to  the  preshyterate,  and  Timothy 
becomes  a  humble  presbyter.  But,  (2.)  If  the  word  "  presby- 
tery" {irpea^vTtpiov)  here  means  \he  presbyter  ate,  and  not  the  per- 
sons,  then  it  doubtless  means  the  same  in  the  two  other  places 
"where  it  occurs.  In  Luke  xxii.  66,  we  shall  receive  tlve  informa- 
tion, that  "  the  presbyterate,"  "  the  presbytership,"  or  "the  cleri- 
cal office"  of  the  people,  that  is,  the  body  by  which  the  people 
conferred  "the  presbyterate,"  came  together  with  the  scribes, 
&c.  In  Acts  xxii.  5,  we  shall  be  informed  that  "  the  presbyterate,'* 
or  "the  clerical  office,"  would  bear  witness  with  the  high-priest 
to  the  life  of  Paul.  Such  absurdities  show  the  propriety  of 
adhering,  in  interpretation,  to  the  obvious  and  usual  meaning  of 
the  words.  (3.)  The  word  is  fixed  in  its  meaning  in  the  usaga 
of  the  Church.  Suicer  (Thesaurus,)  says,  it  denotes  "  an  assem-^ 
bly,  congregation,  and  college  of  presbyters  in  the  Christian 
Church."  In  all  the  instances  which  he  quotes  from  Theodoret, 
(on  1  Tim.  iv.  14,)  from  Chrysostom,  (Homil.  xiii.  on  this  epis- 
tle,) from  Theophylact,  (in  loco,)  and  from  Ignatius,  (Epis.  to 
Antioch,  and  to  the  Trallians,)  there  is  not  the  slightest  evi- 
dence, that  it  is  ever  used  to  denote  the  office,  instead  of  the 
persons,  of  the  presbytery.  (4.)  As  the  opinion  of  Grotius  ig 
referred  to  by  Dr.  O.,  we  beg  leave  to  quote  here  a  passage  from 
his  commentary  on  this  place.  "The  custom  was,  that  the 
presbyters  who  were  present  placed  their  hands  on  the  head  of 
the  candidate,  at  the  same  lime  with  the  presiding  officer  of  their 
body,"  cum  ccetus  sui  principe.  "  Where  the  apostles,  or  their 
assistants,  were  not  present,  ordination  took  place  by  the  presid- 
ing officer  {Prcesidem)  of  their  body,  with  the  concurrence  of 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  161 

the  presbytery."  We  were  particularly  surprised  that  the 
authority  of  Calvin  should  have  been  adduced,  as  sanctioning 
that  interpretation,  which  refers  the  word  presbytery  to  ojficej 
and  not  to  perso7is.  His  words  are,  "  They  who  interpret  pres- 
bytery here  sls  a  coUeciive  noun,  denoting  the  college  of  presby- 
ters, are,  in  my  judgment,  right."  Our  first  argument,  then,  is, 
that  the  word  "  presbytery,"  denoting  the  persons  who  composed 
the  body,  or  college  of  elders,  is  the  proper,  obvious,  and  esta- 
blished sense  of  the  passage. 

(2.)  It  is  evident  from  this  passage,  that  whoever  or  whatever 
else  might  have  been  engaged  in  this  transaction,  a  material  part 
of  it  belonged  to  the  presbytery  or  eldership  concerned.  "  A'e- 
glect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  pro- 
phecy ;    WITH  THE  LAYING  ON  OF  THE    HANDS  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY." 

Here  it  is  evident  that  the  presbytery  bore  a  material  part  in  the 
transaction.  Paul  says  that  the  gift  that  was  in  Timothy  was 
given  him  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery.  That  is,  that  prophecy,  or  some  prophecies  relating 
to  Timothy,  (comp.  1  Tim.  i.  18,  "according  to  the  prophecies 
which  went  before  in  thee,")  had  designated  him  as  a  proper 
person  for  the  ministry,  or  that  be  would  be  employed  in  the 
ministry ;  but  the  prophecy  did  not  invest  him  with  the  office, 
— did  not  confer  the  gift.  That  was  done, — that  formal  appoint- 
ment fulfilling  the  prophecy, — by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of 
the  presbytery.  It  was  necessary  that  that  act  of  the  presbytery 
should  thus  concur  with  the  prophecy,  or  Timothy  had  remained 
a  layman.  The  presbyters  laid  their  hands  on  hiraj  and  he 
thus  received  his  office.  As  the  prophecy  made  no  part  of  his 
ordination,  it  follows  that  he  was  ordained  by  the  presbytery. 
» (3.)  The  statement  here  is  just  one  which  would  be  given 
now  in  a  Presbyterian  ordination ;  it  is  not  one  which  would 
be  made  in  an  Episcopal  ordination.  A  Presbyterian  would 
choose  these  very  words,  to  give  an  account  of  an  ordination  in 
his  church  ;  an  Episcopalian  would  not.  The  former  speaks  of 
ordination  by  a  presbytery  ;  the  latter  of  ordination  by  a  bishop. 
The  former  can  use  the  account  of  the  Apostle  Paul  here  as 
applicable  to  ordination,  without  explanations,  comments,  new 
versions,  and  criticisms  ;'  the  latter  cannot.  The  passage  speaks 
to  the  common  understanding  of  men  in  favor  of  Presbyterian 
ordination, — of  the  action  of  a  presbytery  in  the  case :  it  never 
speaks  the  language  of  Episcopacy,  even  after  all  the  torture  to 
which  it  may  be  subjected  by  Episcopal  criticism.  The  passage 
is  one,  too,  which  is  not  like  the  "apostles  and  elders,"  "the 
apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren," — the  anly  direct  passage  on 
which  Episcopacy  relies, — a  passage  which  has  no  perceptible 
connexion  with  the  case;  but  it  is  one  that  speaks  on  the  very 
subject ;  which  relates  to  the  exact  transaction ;  and  which 
makes  a  positive  affirmation  of  the  very  thing  in  debate. 

(4.)  The  supposition  that  this  was  not  a  presbyterial  transac- 
tion, renders  the  passage  unmeaning.    Here  was  present  a  body 
14* 


162  REVIEW — ^ANSWER   TO   A    REVIEW   OP 

of  men  called  a  presbytery.  We  ask  the  Ep'scopalian  why  they 
were  present?  The  answer  is,  not  for  the  purpose  of  ordina- 
tion, but  for  "concurrence."  Paul,  the  bishop,  is  the  sole 
ordainer.  We  see  Timothy  bowing  before  the  presbytery.  We 
see  them  solemnly  impose  their  hands  on  him.  We  ask,  Why  is 
this?  ^Not  for  the  purpose  of  ordination,'  the  Episcopalian 
replies,  'but  for  "  concurrence."  Paul  is  the  ordainer.'  But,  we 
ask,  Had  they  no  share  in  the  ordination  ?  '  None  at  all.'  Had 
they  no  participation  in  conferring  the  gift  designated  by  pro- 
phecy ?  'None  at  all.'  Why,  then,  present?  Why  did  they 
impose  hands?  For  " concurrence,"  for  form,  for  nothing!  It 
was  an  empty  pageantry,  in  which  they  were  mistaken  when 
supposing  that  their  act  had  something  to  do  in  conferring  the 
gift;  for  their  presence  really  7neant  nothing,  and  the  whole 
transaction  could  as  well  have  been  performed  without  as  with 
them. 

(5,)  If  this  ordination  was  the  joint  act  of  the  presbytery,  we 
have  here  a  complete  scriptural  account  of  a  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation. It  becomes,  then,  a  very  material  question,  how  the 
Episcopalians  dispose  of  this  passage  of  Scripture.  Their  diffi- 
culties and  embarrassments  on  this  subject,  will  still  further 
confirm  the  obvious  interpretation  which  Presbyterians  suggest 
and  hold.  These  difficulties  and  embarrassments  are  thus  pre- 
sented by  Dr.  Onderdonk  :— 

He  first  doubts  whether  this  transaction  was  an  ordination^ 
(Tract,  pp.  18, 19.)  To  this  we  answer,  (1.)  That  if  it  were  not, 
then  there  is  no  account  that  Timothy  was  ever  ordained  j  (2.) 
That  there  is  no  specific  work  mentioned  in  the  history  of  the 
apostles,  to  which  Timothy  was  designated,  unless  it  was  ordi- 
nation ;  (3.)  That  it  is  the  obvious  and  fair  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sage ;  (4.)  That  if  this  does  not  refer  to  ordination,  it  would  be 
easy  to  apply  the  same  denial  to  all  the  passages  which  speak  of 
the  "  imposition  of  hands,"  and  to  show  that  there  was  no  such 
thing  as  ordination  to  the  ministry  in  any  case ;  (5.)  That  it 
accords  with  the  common  usage  of  the  terms,  '  imposition  of 
hands,'  imdiffis  rHv  x^'pwr,  in  the  New  Testament.  The  phrase 
occurs  but  four  times :— Acts  viii.  18 ;  1  Tim.  iv.  14  ;  2  Tim.  i.  6; 
Heb.  vi.  2.  In  all  these  places  it  evidently  denotes  conferring 
some  gift,  office,  or  favor  described  by  the  act.  In  2  Tim. 
i.  6,  it  denotes,  by  the  acknowledgment  of  all  Episcopalians, 
ordination  to  the  ministry.  Why  should  it  not  here  ?  (6.)  If, 
as  Dr.  Onderdonk  supposes,  it  refers  to  "  an  inspired  designation 
of  one  already  in  the  ministry,  to  a  particular  field  of  duty," 
(Tract,  p.  19,)  then,  (a)  we  ask,  why  we  have  no  other  mention 
of  this  transaction  ?  (6)  We  ask  how  it  is  to  be  accounted  for 
that  Paul,  while  here  evidently  referring  Timothy  to  the  duties 
and  responsibilities  of  the  ministerial  office  in  general,  should 
not  refer  to  his  ordination,  but  to  a  designation  to  a  partictdar 
Jield  of  labor  1  His  argument  to  Timothy,  on  such  a  supposition, 
would  be  this—'  Your  office  of  a  minister  of  the  Gospel,  is  one 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  163 

that  is  exceedingly  important.  A  bishop  must  be  blameless, 
vigilant,  sober,  of  good  behavior,  given  to  hospitality,  apt  to 
teach,  not  given  to  wine,  &c.  (chap,  iii.)  In  order  ta  impress 
this  more  deeply  on  you,  to  fix  these  great  duties  in  your  mind,  I 
refer  you, — not  to  the  solemnity  of  your  ordination  vows, — but 
/  solemnly  remind  you  of  "  an  inspired  separation  of  one 
already  in  the  ministry,  to  a  particular  field  of  duty?'^ '  We 
need  only  observe  here,  that  this  is  not  a  strain  of  argument  that 
looks  like  Paul.     But, 

Secondly.  Dr.  O.  supposes  that  this  was  not  a  Presbyterian 
ordination.  (Tract,  pp.  19-21.)  His  first  supposition  is  that  the 
word  "  presbytery"  does  not  mean  the  persons,  but  the  office, 
(p.  19.)  This  we  have  already  noticed.  He  next  supposes,  (pp. 
20,  21,)  that  if  the  "  presbytery"  here  means  not  the  office  given 
to  Timothy,  but  a  body  of  elders,  that  it  cannot  be  shown  "  of 
whom  this  ordaining  presbytery  was  composed."  (p.  21.)  And 
he  then  proceeds  to  state  that  there  are  "seven  modes"  in 
which  this  "  presbytery"  might  be  composed.  It  might  be 
made  up  of  "ruling  elders;"  or,  it  might  be  composed  of 
the  "  grade  called  presbyters ;"  or,  as  JPeter  and  John  called 
themselves  "  elders,"  it  might  be  made  up  of  "  apostles ;"  or, 
"  there  may  have  been  ruling  elders  and  presbyters ;  or,  pres- 
byters and  one  or  more  apostles  ;  or,  ruling  elders  and  one  or 
more  of  the  apostles ;  or,  ruling  elders,  and  presbyters,  and 
apostles."  (p.  21.)  Now  as  Dr.  O.  has  not  informed  us  which  of 
these  modes  he  prefers,  we  are  left  merely  to  conjecture.  We 
may  remark  on  these  suppositions,  (1.)  That  they  are  mere  sup- 
positions. There  is  not  the  shadow  of  proof  to  support  them. 
The  word  "  presbytery,"  "  a  body  of  elders,"  does  not  appear  ta 
be  such  a  difficult  word  of  interpretation,  as  to  make  it  necessary 
to  envelop  it  in  so  much  mist,  in  order  to  understand  it.  Dr.  O.'s 
argument  here,  is  such  as  a  man  always  employs  when  he  is 
pressed  by  difficulties  which  he  cannot  meet,  and  when  he 
throws  himself,  as  it  were,  into  a  labyrinth,  in  the  hope  that 
amidst  its  numerous  passages  he  may  escape  detection  and 
evade  pursuit.  (2.)  If  this  "  body  of  elders"  was  made  up  of 
"  ruling  elders,"  or,  "  of  the  grade  called  presbyters,"  then  the 
argument  of  Episcopacy  is  overthrown.  Here  is  an  instance, 
on  either  supposition,  of  Presbyterian  ordination,  which  is  fatal 
to  the  claims  that  bishops  only  ordain.  Or,  if  it  be  supposed 
that  this  was  not  an  ordination,-  but  "  an  inspired  separation  of 
one  already  in  the  ministry,  to  a  particular  field  of  duty,"  it  is 
an  act  equally  fatal  to  the  claim  of  prelates  to  the  general 
"superintendence"  of  the  Church  ;  since  it  is  manifest,  that  these 
"  elders"  took  upon  themselves  the  functions  of  this  office,  and 
designated  "  the  bishop  of  Ephesus"  to  his  field  of  labor.  Such 
a  transaction  would  scarcely  meet  with  Episcopal  approbation, 
in  the  nineteenth  century. 

But  in  regard  to  the  other  suppositions,  that  a  part  of  all  the 
"presbytery"  was  composed  of  apostles,  we  remark,  (14  That 


164  REVIEW— ANSWER   TO   A   RE\1EW  OF 

it  is  a  merely  gratuitous  supposition.  There  is  not  an  instance 
in  which  the  term  "presbytery,"  or  "body  of  elders,"  is  applied 
in  the  New  Testament  to  the  collective  body  of  the  apostles. 
(2.)  On  the  supposition  that  the  "presbytery"  was  composed 
entirely  of  apostles,  then  we  ask  how  it  happens,  that,  in  2  Tim. 
i.  6,  Paul  appropriates  to  himself  a  power  which  belonged  to  every- 
one of  them  in  as  full  right  as  to  him?  How  came  they  to 
surrender  their  power  into  the  hands  of  an  individual  ?  Was  it 
the  character  of  Paul  thus  to  assume  authority  which  did  not 
belong  to  him?  We  have  seen  already  how,  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  the  Episcopalian,  he  superseded  Bishop  Timothy  in  the 
exercise  of  discipline  in  Corinth,  and  in  his  own  diocese  at 
Ephesus:  we  have  now  an  instance  in  which  he  claims  all  the 
virtue  of  the  ordaining  power,  where  his  fellow  apostles  must 
have  been  equally  concerned. 

But  if  a  part  only  of  this  "  presbytery"  was  composed  of 
apostles,  and  the  remainder  presbyters,  either  ruling  elders,  or 
"  the  second  grade,"  we  would  make  the  following  inquiries : 
(1.)  Was  he  ordained  as  a  prelate  7  So  the  Episcopalians  with 
one  voice  declare, — prelate  of  Ephesus.  Then  it  follows  that 
Timothy,  a  prelate,  was  set  apart  to  his  work  by  the  imposition 
of  the  hands  of  elders.  What  was  then  his  prelatical  char- 
acter? Does  the  water  in  the  cistern  rise  higher  than  the 
fountain  ?  If  laymen  were  concerned,  Timothy  was  a  layman 
still.  If  presbyters,  Timothy  was  a  presbyter  still.  And  thus 
all  the  power  of  prelates,  from  him  of  Rome  downward,  has 
come  through  the  hands  of  humble  presbyters, — ^just  as  we 
believe,,  and  just  as  history  affirms.  (2.)  Was  he  ordained  as  a 
presbytei-  ?  Then  his  Episcopal  character,  so  far  as  it  depends 
on  his  ordination,  is  swept  away  ;  and  thus  we  have  not  a  soli- 
tary instance  of  the  consecration  of  a  prelate  in  all  the  New 
Testament. 

Which  of  these  suppositions  of  Dr.  O.,  he  is  disposed  to  re- 
ceive as  the  true  one,  we  are  unable  to  say.  All  of  them  cannot 
be  true  ;  and  whichever  he  chooses,  is,  as  we  have  seen,  equally 
fatal  to  his  argument,  and  involves  a  refutation  of  the  claims  of 
prelacy. 

The  only  other  reply  with  which  Dr.  O.  meets  the  argument 
for  Presbyterian  ordination  from  this  passage,  is,  by  the  suppo- 
sition, that  the  virtue  of  the  ordaining  act  was  derived  from  the 
Apostle  Paul.  The  passage  on  which  he  rests  the  argument  is, 
(2  Tim.  i.  6,)  "that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee, 
by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands."  On  this  passage  we  observe, 
(1.)  Paul  does  not  deny  that  other  hands  were  also  imposed  on 
Timothy  ;  nor  that  his  authority  was  derived  also  from  others, 
in  conjunction  with  himself  (2.)  That  by  the  supposition  ot 
Episcopalians,  as  well  as  Presbyterians,  other  hands  were  in 
fact,  imposed  on  him.  (3.)  It  was  perfectly  natural  for  Paul,  in 
consequence  of  the  relation  which  Timothy  sustained  to  him,  as 
his  adopted  son,  (1  Tina.  L  2 ;)  as  being  selected  by  him  for  the 


ministry,  (Acts  xvj.  3;)  and  as  being  his  companion  in  the 
ministry,  and  in  travels,  to  remind  him,  near  the  close  of  his 
own  life,  (2  Tim.  iv.  6,)  that  he  had  been  solemnly  set  apart  to 
the  work  by  himself, — to  bring  his  own  agency  into  full  view, — 
in  order  to  stimulate  and  encourage  him.  That  Paul  had  a 
part  in  the  act  of  the  ordination,  we  admit;  that  others  also  had 
a  part — the  "presbytery" — we  have  proved.  (4.)  The  expres- 
sion which  is  here  used,  is  just  such  as  an  aged  Presbyterian 
minister  would  now  use,  if  directing  a  farewell  letter  to  a  son  in 
the  ministry.  He  would  remind  him,  as  Paul  does  in  this  epis- 
tle, (2  Tim.  iv.  6,)  that  he  was  about' to  leave  the  ministry,  and 
the  world ;  and  if  he  wished  to  impress  his  mind  in  a  peculiarly 
tender  manner,  he  would  remind  him,  also,  that  he  took  part  in 
his  ordination;  that  under  his  own  hands,  he  had  been  desig- 
nated to  the  work  of  the  ministry ;  and  would  endeavor  to  deep- 
en his  conviction  of  the  importance  and  magnitude  of  the  work, 
by  the  reflection  that  he  had  been  solemnly  set  apart  to  it  by  a 
father.  Yet  who  would  infer  from  this,  that  the  aged  Presbyte- 
rian would  wish  to  be  regarded  as  a  prelate  ? 

Dr,  O.  remarks  on  this  case,  (Tract,  p.  22,)  that,  if  Paid  wa» 
engaged  in  the  transaction,  it  was  the  work  of  an  apostle,  and 
was  "  an  apostolic  ordination."  We  admit"  that  it  was  an 
^^  apostolic  ordination;"  but  when  will  Episcopalians  learn  to 
suppose  it  possible,  that  an  "apostolic  ordination"  was  not  a 
prelatical  ordination?  Did  not  Dr.  O.  see  that  this  was  assum- 
ing' the  very  point  in  debate,  that  the  peculiarity  of  the  aposittfliQ 
office  was  the  power  of  ordaining"?  We  reply,  further,  that 
whoever  was  engaged  in  it,  a  "  presbytery"  was  concerned,  and 
it  was  a  Presbyterian  ordination. 

We  have  now  considered  all  the  objections  that  have  been 
made  to  the  obvious  interpretation  of  this  passage;  and  we  are 
prepared  to  submit  it  to  any  candid  mind,  as  a  full  and  unquali- 
fied statement  of  an  instance  of  Presbyterian  ordination.  Which- 
ever of  the  half-dozen  suppositions,— assuming  a  hue,  chameleon- 
like, from  the  nature  of  the  argument  to  be  refuted, — which 
Episcopalians  are  compelled  to  apply  to  the  passage,  is  adopted, 
we  have  seen  that  they  involve  them  in  all  the  difficulties  of  an 
mmatural  interpretation,  and  conduct  us  by  a  more  circuitous 
route,  only  to  the  plain  and  common  sense  exposition  of  the 
passage,  as  decisive  in  favor  of  Presbyterian  ordination. 

Having  thus  shown  that  there  was  one  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion, in  the  case  of  Timothy,  claimed  by  Episcopalians  as  a 
prelate,  and  this  too,  in  perhaps  the  only  instance  of  ordination 
to  the  ministry  recorded  in  the  New  Testament ;  we  now  pro- 
ceed to  adduce  the  case  of  a  church  that  was  not  organized  on 
the  principles  of  Episcopalians,  with  three  orders  of  clergy. 
We  refer  to  the  church  at  Philippi.  "  Paul  and  Timothy,  serv- 
ants of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  who  are  at 
Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons,"  mv  UiaKb-non  koi  SiMdvoiu 
In  regard  to  this  church  we  make  the  follouing  observations. 


166  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A   REVIEW  OP 

(1.)  It  was  organized  by  the  Apostle  Paul  himself,  in  connexion 
with  Silas,  and  was,  therefore,  on  the  truly  "  primitive  and  apos- 
tolic" plan.  (Acts  xvi.)  (2.)  It  was  in  the  centre  of  a  large 
territory,  the  capital  of  Macedonia,  and  not  likely  to  be  placed  in 
subjection  to  a  diocesan  of  another  region.  (3.)  It  was  sur- 
rounded by  other  churches;  as  we  have  express  mention  of  the 
church  at  Thessalonica,  and  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  at 
Berea.  (Acts  xvii.)  (4.)  There  is  mention  made  of  but  two 
orders  of  men.  What  the  deacons  were,  we  know  from  the 
appointment  in  Acts  vi.  1-6.  They  were  designated,  not  to 
preach,  but  to  take  care  of  the  poor  members  of  ti^e  church,  and 
to  distribute  the  alms  of  the  saints.  As  we  have  there,  in  the 
original  appointment  of  the  office,  the  express  and  extended 
mention  of  its  functions,  we  are  to  infer  that  the  design  was  the 
same  at  Philippi.  If  we  admit,  however,  the  supposition  of  the 
Episcopalians,  that  the  deacons  were  preachers,  it  will  not  at  ail 
affect  our  argument.  The  other  class,  therefore,  the  "bishops," 
constitute  the  preaching  order,  or  the  clergy, — those  to  whom 
were  committed  the  preaching  of  the  word,  the  administration 
of  the  sacraments,  and  of  the  discipline  of  the  church.  Now, 
either  these  bishops  were  prelates,  or  they  were  the  pastors,  the 
presbyters  of  the  church.  If  Episcopalians  choose  to  say  they 
were  prelates,  then  it  follows,  (a)  that  there  was  a  plurality  of 
such  prelates  in  the  same  diocese,  and  the  same  city,  and  th?? 
same  church;  which  is  contrary  to  the  fundamental  idea  of 
Episcopacy.  It  follows  ^Iso,  {b)  that  there  is  entirely  wanting 
in  this  church  the  '  second  order'  of  clergy  ;  that  an  Episcopal 
church  is  organized,  defective  in  one  of  the  essential  grades, 
with  an  appointment  of  a  body  of  prelates,  without  presbyters; 
that  is,  an  order  of 'superior'  men,  designated  to  exercise  juris- 
diction over  "  priests"  who  had  no  existence.  If  it  be  said  that 
the  ''presbyters,"  or  "second  order,"  might  have  been  there^ 
though  Paul  did  not  expressly  name  them  ;  then  we  are  pre- 
sented with  the  remarkable  fact,  that  he  specifies  the  deacons, 
an  inferior  order,  and  expresses  to  them  his  Christian  saluta- 
tions; that  he  salutes  and  addresses  also  the  saints,  and  yet 
entirely  disregards  those  who  had  the  special  pastoral  charge  of 
the  church.  Paul  thus  becomes  a  model  of  disrespect  and 
incivility.  In  the  epistles  to  Timothy  he  gives  him  directions 
about  every  thing  else,  but  no  counsel  about  his  brother  pre- 
lates: in  the  epistles  to  the  churches  he  salutes  their  prelates 
and  their  deacons,  but  becomes  utterly  regardless  of  the  'second 
order  of  clergy,'  the  immediate  pastors  of  the  chuVches. 

But  if  our  Episcopal  brethren  prefer  to  say,  that  the  "  bishops'* 
here  mean  not  prelates  but  presbyters,  we,  so  far,  shall  agree 
Avith  them ;  and  then  it  follows,  (a)  that  here  is  an  imdeniable 
instance  of  a  church,  or  rather  a  group  of  churches,  large 
enough  to  satisfy  the  desire  of  any  diocesan  bishop  for  extended 
jurisdiction,  organized  without  any  prelate.  None  is  men- 
tioned; and  there  are  but  two  orders  of  men,  to  whom  the  care 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTITRE,  167 

of  the  "saints  at  Philippi"  is  intrusted.  (&)  If  there  was  a 
prelate  there,  then  we  ask,  why  Paul  did  not  refer  to  him  with 
affectionate  salutations?  Why  does  he  refer  to  '  the  second  and 
the  third  orders  of  clergy,'  without  the  slightest  reference  to  the 
man  who  was  '  superior  to  them  in  ministerial  rank  and  power?' 
Was  Paul  jealous  of  the  prelate?  or  have  we  here  another 
instance  of  indecorum  and  incivility  ?  (c)  If  they  had  had  a 
prelate,  and  the  see  was  now  vacant,  why  is  there  no  reference 
to  this  fact?  why  no  condolence  at  their  loss?  why  no  prayer 
that  God  would  send  them  a  man  to  enter  into  the  vacant  dio- 
cese ?  {d)  Episcopalians  have  sometimes  felt  the  pressure  of 
these  difficulties  to  be  so  great,  that  they  have  supposed  tlie  pre- 
late to  have  been  absent  when  this  epistle  was  addressed  to  the 
church  at  Philippi;  and  that  this  was  the  reason  why  he  was 
not  remembered  in  the  salutation.  Of  this  solution,  we  observe 
only,  that  like  some  other  of  their  arguments,  it  is  mere  assump- 
tion. And  even  granting  this  assumption,  it  is  an  inquiry  of  not 
very  easy  solution,  why  Paul  did  not  make  some  reference  to 
this  fact,  and  ask  their  prayers  for  the  absent  prelate.  One  can 
scarcely  help  being  forcibly  reminded,  by  the  ineffectual  efforts 
of  Episcopalians  to  find  a  prelate  at  Philippi,  of 'a  remarkable 
transaction  mentioned  1  Kings  xviii.  2T,  28,  to  which  we  need 
only  refer  our  readers.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add,  that  if 
a  single  church  is  proved  to  have  been  organized  without  the 
'^  three  orders  of  clergy,"  the  parity  of  the  ministry  is  made  out 
by  apostolic  appointment,  and  the  Episcopal  argument  is  at 
an  end. 

We  may  add,  that  our  view  of  the  organization  of  the  church 
in  Philippi,  is  confirmed  by  an  examination  of  the  organization 
of  the  church  in  its  immediate  neighborhood,  in  Thessalonica. 
In  the  tvyo  epistles  which  Paul  directed  to  that  church,  there  is 
not  the  slightest  reference  to  any  prelatical  bishop  ;  there  is  no 
mention  of  'three  orders  of  clergy;'  there  is  no  hint  that  the 
church  was  organized  on  that  plan!  But  one  order  of  ministers 
is  mentioned,  evidently  as  entitled  to  the  same  respect,  and  as  on 
an  entire  equality.  They  were  men  clearly  of  the  same  rank,  and 
engaged  in  discharging  the  functions  of  the  same  office.  "  And 
we  beseech  you,  brethren,  to  know  them  which  labor  among 
you,  and  are  over  you  in  the  Lord,  and  admonish  you;  and  to 
esteem  them  very  highly  in  love  for  their  work's  sake."  1  Thess. 
V.  12,  13.  Will  our  Episcopal  friends  be  kind  enough  to  inform 
us,  why  there  is  no  mention  of  the  prelate,  whether  present 
or  absent  ? 

W^e  are  here  prepared  to  estimate  the  force  of  the  undeniable 
fact,  that  there  is  no  distinction  of  grade  or  rank,  by  the  names 
which  are  given  to  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel  in  the  New- 
Testament.  It  is  admitted  by  Episcopalians  themselves  that 
the  names  bishop,  presbyter,  «Scc,,  in  the  Bible,  do  not  denote 
those  ranks  of  church  officers  to  which  they  are  now  applied, 
but  are  given  indiscriminately  to  all.    On  this  point  we  have 


168  WLVIEW — ANSWKR    TO   A    REVIEW    OF 

the  authority  of  Dr.  Onderdonk. 
he,  "  which  now  designates  the  highest  grade  of  the  ministry, 
is  not  appropriated  to  this  office  in  Scripture.  That  name  is 
given  to  the  middle  order,  or  presbyters;  and  all  that  we  read 

IN    THE     NEW    TESTAMENT    CONCERNING     'BISHOPS,'    (including,    of 

course,  the  words  'overseers,'  and  'oversight,'  which  have  the 
same  derivation,)  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining  to  this  mid- 
dle GRADE."  (Tract,  p.  12.)  "Another  irregularity  of  the  same 
kind,  occurs  in  regard  to  the  word  'elder.'  It  is  sometimes 
used  for  a  minister  or  clergyman  of  any  grade,  higher,  middle, 
or  lower;  but  it  more  strictly  signifies  a  presbyter."  Tract, 
p.  14. 

In  accordance  with  this  fact,  which  is  as  remarkable  as  it  is 
true,  we  have  seen  that  Peter  applies  to  himself  the  name  pres- 
byter, and  puts  himself  on  a  level  with  other  presbyters.  "The 
presbyters  which  are  among  you,  I  exhort,  (not  I  command,  or 
enjoin,  as  a  prelate  would  do,)  who  am  also  a  presbyter." 
1  Peter  v.  1.  And  in  the  very  next  verse  he  exhorts  them,  (the 
elders  or  presbyters,)  to  "  feed  the  flock  of  God,  taking  the  over- 
sight, (imtTKciTcivvTes  exercising  the  office  of  bishop,)  not  by  con- 
straint," &c. 

Now  let  these  conceded  facts  be  borne  in  mind.  The  term 
presbyter  is  applied  to  the  apostles.  "  All  that  we  read  of  in  the 
New  Testament  concerning  '  bishops,'  is  applied  to  the  middle 
grade."  The  apostles  address  each  other,  and  their  brethren,  by 
the  same  terms, — by  no  words  or  names  that  indicate  rank,  or 
grade,  or  authority.  We  maintain  that  this  fact  can  be  account- 
ed for,  only  on  the  supposition  that  they  regarded  themselves  as 
ministers,  as  on  a  level.  If  they  meant  to  teach  that  one  class 
was  superior  in  rank  and  power  to  others,  we  maintain  that 
they  would  not  have  used  terms  always  confounding  such  dis- 
tinctions, and  always  proceeding  on  the  supposition  that  they 
were  on  an  equality.  It  will  not  be  pretended,  that  they  could 
not  employ  terms  that  would  have  marked  the  various  grades. 
For  if  the  term  'bishop'  can  now  do  it,  it  could  do  it  then  ;  if 
the  term  presbyter  can  now  be  used  to  denote  'the  middle 
grade,'  it  could  then  have  been  so  used.  We  maintain,  too,  that 
if  such  had  been  their  intention,  they  would  have  thus  employed 
those  terms.  That  the  sacred  writers  were  capable  of  using 
language  definitely,  Dr.  Onderdonk  will  not  doubt.  Why,  then, 
if  they  were  capable,  did  they  choose  not  to  do  it  7  Are  Episco- 
pal bishops  now,  ever  as  vague  and  indefinite  in  their  use  of  the 
terms  'bishop'  and  'presbyters'  as  were  the  apostles?  Why 
were  the  latter  so  undesir'ous  of  having  the  "pre-eminence  ?" 
(3  John  9.) 

It  is  remarkable,  that  the  mode  of  using  these  terms  in  the 
New  Testament,  is  precisely  in  accordance  with  the  usage  in 
Presbyterian  and  Congregational  churches.  They  speak,  jiist 
as  the  sacred  writers  dFd,  of  their  ministers,  indiscriminately  as 
'  bishops,'  as  '  pastors,'  as  *  teachers,'  as  ♦  evangelists.'      They 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED   BY   SCRlPTCRir.  16^^ 

regard  their  ministers  as  on  an, equality-    Did  not  tne  sacred 
writers  do  the  same  ? 

It  is  as  remarkable,  that  the  mode  of  using  these  terms  in  the 
Episcopal  churches  is  not,  (ex  conee^sis^)  that  which  occurs  in 
the  Bible>  And  it  is  as  certain,  that-wjere  they  thus  to  use  those 
terms,  it  would  at  once  confound  their  orders  and  ranks,  and 
reduce  their  ministers  to  equality.  Do  we  ever  see  any  approxi- 
mation in  their  addresses,  and  in.  their  canons,  in  this  respect,  to 
the  ianguage  and  style  of  the  New  Testament?  Do  we  ever 
hear  of  Bishop  Tyng,  or  Bishop  Hawks,  or  Bishop  Schroeder, 
or  Bishop  Croswell  ?  Do  we  ever  hear  of  Presbyter  Ives,  or 
Doane,  or  Onderdonk?  How  would  language  like  this  sound  in 
the  mouth  of  a  prelatical  bishop?  Would  not  all  men  be 
amazed,  as  if  some  new  thing  had  happened  under  the  sun,  in 
llie  Episcopal  Church  ?  And  yet,  we  venture  to  presume,  that 
the  terms  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  designate  any  office, 
may  be  used  still.  We  shall  still  choose  to  call  things  by  their 
true  names,  and  to  apply  to  all  ranks  and  orders  of  men  the 
terms  which  are  applied  to  them  by  the  Spirit  of  inspiration. 
And  as  the  indiscriminate  use  of  these  terms  is  carefully 
avoided  by  the  customs  and  canons  of  the  Episcopal  Church ; 
as  there  seems  to  have  been  a  presentiment  in  the  formation  of 
those  canons,  that  such  iiwiiscriminate  use  would  reduce  the 
fabric  to  simple  '  parity'  of  the  clergy ;  and  as  these  terms  can- 
mt  be  so  used,  without  reducing  these  '  ranks  and  orders'  to  a 
scriptural  equality,  we  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Apostles 
meant  to  teach,  that  the  ministers  of  the  New  Testament  arc 
equal  in  mmislerial  rights  and  powers. 

We  have  now  gone  through  this  entire  subject.  We  have 
examined,  we  trust,  in  a  candid  manner, — we  are  sure  with  the 
kindest  feelings  toward  our  Episcopal  brethren,  —  every  argu- 
ment which  they  have  to  adduce  from  the  Bible,  in  favor  of  the 
claims  of  their  bishops.  We  have  disposed  of  these  arguments 
step  by  step.  We  have  done  this,  remembering  that  these  are 
ALL  the  arguments  which  Episcopacy  has  to  urge  from  the  Bible. 
There  is  nothing  that  remains.  The  subject  is  exhausted. 
Episcopacy  rests  here.  And  it  is  incumbent  on  Episcopacy  to 
show^  not  to  affiTm^  that  our  interpretation  of  those  passages  is 
not  sustained  by  sound  principles  of  exegesis. 

The  burden  of  proof  still  lies  on  them.  'J'hey  assumed  it,  and 
on  them  it  rests.  They  affirm  that  enormous  powers  are  lodged 
in  the  hands  of  the  prelate, — every  thing  pertaining  to  ordina- 
tion, to  discipline,  to  the  superintendence  of  the  Christian  Church. 
They  claim  powers  tending  to  degrade  every  presbyter  in  the 
world  to  the  condition  of  a  dependent  and  inferior  office ;  strip- 
ping him  of  the  right  of  transmitting  his  own  office,  and  of 
administering  discipline  among  his  own  flock.  They  arrogate 
powers  which  go  to  strip  all  otiier  presbyters,  except  Episcopa- 
lian, of  any  right  to  officiate  in  the  Church  of  God;  rendering 
their  ordination  invalid,  their  administrations  void,  and  their 
15 


170  REVIEW — ANSWER   TO   A    REVIEW    OF 

exercise  of  the  functions  of  their  office,  a  daring  and  impious 
invasion  of  the  rights  of  the  priesthood,  and  a  violation  of  the 
law  of  Christ.  The  foundation  for  these  sweeping,  and  certainly 
not  very  modest  claims,  we  have  examined  with  all  freedom. 
The  argument  for  prelacy  may  be  summed  up  in  a  word.  It 
consists  in  the  text, — the  solitary  text, — "  the  apostles  and 
elders,"  "the  apostles,  and  elders,  avd  brethren,"  joined  to  a 
circuitous  train  of  reasoning  remote  from  common  apprehen- 
sion, and  too  abstruse  for  the  guidance  of  the  mass  of  men. 
Step  by  step  we  have  followed  them  in  their  circuits ;  argument 
after  argument  we  have  patiently  displaced  ;  and  at  the  conclu- 
sion, we  may  ask  any  person  of  plain  common  sense,  to  place 
his  finger  on  that  portion  of  the  Book  of  God  which  is  favorable 
to  prelacy. 

This  argument  having  been  met  and  disproved,  we  have 
produced  an  instance  of  express  Presbyterian  ordination  in  the 
case  of  Timothy.  Two  churches  we  have  found  that  were 
organized  without  prelates.  We  are  thus,  by  another  train  of 
argument,  conducted  to  the  same  result, — that  prelates  are 
unknown  in  the  New  Testament.  And  to  make  our  argument 
perfectly  conclusive,  we  have  shown  that  the  same  titles  are 
applied  indiscriminately  to  all. 

Our  argument  may  be  staled  in  still  fewer  words.  The 
Episcopal  claims  are  not  made  out ;  and,  of  course,  the  clergy  of 
the  New  Testament  are  equal.  The  Episcopalian  has  failed  to 
show  that  there  were  different  grades;  and  it  follows  that  there 
must  be  parity.  We  have  examined  the  only  case  of  ordina- 
tion specified  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  constitution  of  the 
churches,  and  find  that  it  is  so;  and  we  are  conducted  inevita- 
bly to  the  conclusion  that  prelacy  is  not  in  the  Bible. 

We  now  take  our  leave  of  the  Episcopal  controversy.  As  Epis- 
copacy has  nothing  which  it  cari  add  to  the  scriptural  argument, 
we  regard  our  labors  in  this  department  as  at  end.  The  whole 
scriptural  Birgumeni  is  exhausted,  and  here  our  inquiry  ends; 
and  here  our  interest  in  this  topic  ceases.  We  lake  leave  of  the 
subject  with  the  same  kind  feelings  for  that  Church,  and  the 
same  respect  for  the  author  of  the  "Tract,"  with  which  we  began 
the  inquiry.  We  remember  the  former  services  which  the  Epis- 
copal Church  rendered  to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  of  the  world's 
redemption  ;  we  remember  the  bright  and  ever-living  lights  of 
truth,  which  her  clergy  and  her  illustrious  laymen  have  in  other 
limes  enkindled  in  the  darkness  of  this  world's  history,  and 
which  continue  to  pour  their  pure  and  steady  lustre  on  the  liter- 
ature, the  laws,  and  the  customs  of  the  Christian  world  ;  and  we 
trust  the  day  will  never  come,  when  our  own  bosoms,  or  the 
bosoms  of  Christians  in  any  denomination,  will  cease  to  beat 
with  emotions  of  lofty  thanksgiving  to  the  God  of  grace,  that  he 
raised  up  such  gifted  and  holy  men,  to  meet  the  corruptions  of 
the  Papacy,  and  to  breast  the  wickedness  of  the  world. 

In  our  view  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  we  can  have  no  unkind 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  171 

feelings  toward  any  branch  of  the  true  Church  of  God.  We 
strive  to  cherish  feelings  of  affectionate  regard  for  them  all,  and 
to  render  praise  to  the  common  Father  of  Christians,  for  any 
efforts  which  are  made  to  advance  the  intelligence,  the  purity, 
and  the  salvation  of  mankind.  In  our  views  of  the  nature  of 
mind,  and  of  freedom,  we  can  have  no  unkind  feelings  toward 
any  denomination  of  true  Christians.  "  There  are  diversities  of 
operations,  but  the  same  Spirit."  We  have  no  expectation  that 
all  men,  in  this  world,  will  tliink  alike.  And  we  regard  it  as  a 
wise  arrangement,  that  the  Church  of  God  is  thus  organized 
into  different  sections  and  departments,  under  the  banner  of  the 
common  Captain  of  their  salvation.  It  promotes  inquiry.  It 
prevents  complacency  in  mere  forms  and  ceremonies.  It  pro- 
duces healthy  and  vigorous  emulation.  It  affords  opportunities 
for  all  classes  of  minds  to  arrange  themselves  according  to  their 
preferences  and  their  habits  of  thought.  And  it  is  not  unfavora- 
ble to  that  kindness  of  feeling  which  the  Christian  can  cherish, 
and  should  cherish,  when  he  utters  in  the  sanctuary  the  article  of 
his  faith,  "  I  believe  in  the  holy  catholic  Church,  the  commu- 
nion of  saints."  The  attachment  of  a  soldier  to  a  particular 
company  or  squadron,  need  not  diminish  his  respect  for  the 
armies  of  his  country,  or  extinguish  liis  love  of  her  liberty. 
Being  joined  to  a  company  of  infantry,  need  not  make  me  feel 
that  the  cavalry  are  useless,  or  involve  me  in  a  controversy  with 
the  artillery. 

We  ask  only,  that  Episcopacy  should  not  assume  arrogant 
claims;  that  she  should  be  willing  to  take  her  place  among 
other  denominations  of  Christians,  entitled  to  like  respect  as 
othei's,  to  all  the  tender  and  sympathetic  affections  of  the  Chris- 
tian brotherhood ;  and  willing  that  others  should  walk  in  the 
liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  his  people  free.  We  shall 
have  no  contest  with  our  Episcopal  brethren  for  loving  the 
church  of  their  choice,  and  the  church  in  which  they  seek  to 
prepare  themselves  for  heaven.  We  shall  not  utter  the  lan- 
guage of  unkindness  for  their  reverencing  the  ministerial  ofRcc, 
in  which  the  spirits  of  Cranmer  and  Leighton  were  prepared  for 
their  eternal  rest.  Content  that  other  denominations  should 
enjoy  like  freedom,  while  they  do  not  arrogate  to  themselves 
unholy  claims,  and  attempt  to  "lord  it  over"  other  parts  "of 
God's  heritage,"  we  shall  pray  for  their  success,  and  rejoice  in 
their  advancement.  But  the  moment  they  cross  this  line ;  the 
moment  they  make  any  advances  which  resemble  those  of  the 
Papacy ;  the  moment  they  set  up  the  claim  of  being  the  only 
"  primitive  and  apostolical  Church;"  and  the  moment  they  speak 
of  the  "invalid  ministry"  and  the  "invalid  ordinances"  of  the 
churches,  and  regard  them  as  "left  to  the  uncovenanted  mer- 
cies of  God,"  that  moment  the  language  of  argument  and  of 
Christian  rebuke  may  properly  be  heardfrom  every  other  deno- 
mination. There  are  minds  that  can  investigate  the  Bible,  as 
well  as  the  advocates  for  Episcopacy ;  there  are  pens  that  caa 


172  REVIEW — ANSWER  TO  A  REVIEW  OF 

compete  with  any  found  in  the  Episcopal  Church ;  and  there 
are  men  who  will  not  be  slow  to  rebuke  the  first  appearance  of 
arrogance  and  of  lordly  assumption,  and  who  will  remind  them, 
that  the  time  has  gone  by  when  an  appeal  to  the  infallible 
Church  will  answer  in  this  controversy.  Arrogant  assumptions, 
they  will  be  at  once  reminded,  do  not  suit  the  present  state  of 
intelligence  in  this  land,  nor  the  genius  of  our  institutions. 
While  the  Episcopal  Church  shall  seek,  by  kind  and  gentle 
means,  to  widen  its  influence,  like  the  flowing  of  a  river,  or  like 
the  dews  of  heaven,  we  shall  hail  its  advances:  when  she 
departs  from  this  course,  and  seeks  to  utter  the  language  of 
authority  and  denunciation,  —  to  prostrate  other  churches,  as 
with  the  sweepings  of  the  mountain-torrent,— she  will  be  check- 
ed by  all  the  intelligence  and  piety  of  this  land  ;  and  she  will  be 
reminded,  by  a  voice  uttered  from  all  the  institutions  of  these 
times,  that  Episcopacy  has  had  its  reign  of  authority  in  the 
dark  ages,  and  at  the  Vatican ;  and  that  the  very  genius  of  Pro- 
testantism is,  that  one  church  is  not  to  utter  the  language  of 
arrogance  over  another  ;  and  that  not  authority  or  denuncia- 
tion, but  SCRIPTURAL  EXPOSITION,  is  to  deterfnine  which  is  in 
accordance  with  the  Book  of  God. 

In  our  review,  we  expressed  at  length  our  feelings  toward  the 
Episcopal  Church,  (pp.  36-38.)  After  quoting  a  part  of  our 
remarks  on  this  subject,  the  author  of  the  Answer  makes  these 
candid  and  kind  observations  : — 

"  A  truly  splendid  eulogium  on  our  Church, — and  one  which 
does  credit  to  the  candor,  the  benevolence,  the  superiority  to 
prejudice,  of  the  elevated  mind  that  conceived  it,  and  the  honor- 
able frankness  which  gave  it  public  utterance.  With  the  feel- 
ings of  such  a  heart  as  that  of  the  author  of  these  paragraphs, 
we  have,  we  can  have,  no  controversy  whatever, — we  rather 
desire  to  copy  them  more  perfectly  ourselves,  and  be  taught 
more  of  the  grand  duty  of  love,  by  an  opponent  who  so  nobly 
and  so  delightfully  exemplifies  it."  (p.  19.) 

The  author  of  the  "Answer"  quoted  the  whole  of  our  remarks, 
with  the  exception  of  the  last  five  lines.  In  those  lines,  we 
expressed  a  hope,  that  "  the  Episcopal  Church  was  destined  yet 
to  be,  throughout,  the  warm  friend  of  revivals,  and  would  conse- 
crate her  wealth  and  power  to  the  work  of  making  a  perpetual 
aggression  on  the  territories  of  sin  and  of  death."  (Review, 
p.  36.)  Why  this  part  of  our  remarks  was  omitted,  as  not 
worthy  of  the  comment  of  being  a  "  splendid  eulogium  on  the 
Church,"  we  know  not.  The  fact  was  striking.  We  were  not 
"amazed"  by  it;  but  we  were  conscious  of  that  feeling  of  pen- 
siveness,  which  involuntarily  steals  over  the  soul,  when  a  Chris- 
tian, high  in  office  and  in  talent,  evinces  any  degree  of  cold- 
ness toward  the  great  work  of  converting  the  world.  We  could 
not  but  ask  ourselves.  Is  this  to  be  interpreted  as  an  indication, 
that  the  author  of  the  "  Answer"  is  alarmed  at  the  word  reviv- 
ALB  ?    Are  we  to  consider  it  as  an  indication,  that  he  could  not  ' 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED  BY   SCRIPTURE.  173 

join  us  in  the  wish,  that  the  wealth  and  power  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  should  be  consecrated  to  the  work  of  saving  the  world  ? 
Are  we  to  understand,  that  there  is  such  a  fear  of  the  word 
revivals,  and  such  a  dread  of  an  entire  consecration  of  wealth 
and  power  to  fulfil  the  special  command  of  Christ,  as  to  induce 
the  author  of  the  "  Answer"  to  pause, — in  medias  res, — in  the 
very  midst  of  a  quotation,  rather  than  repeat  or  write  the  word 
revivals,  or  speak  of  such  a  consecration  ?  It  may  have  been, 
indeed,  wholly  an  inadvertent  omission ;  and  as  we  prefer  such 
an  interpretation,  to  one  which  implies  suspicion  or  improper 
motive,  we  shall  close  this  article  as  we  did  the  former,  with  the 
wish, — a  wish  which  shall  never  depart  from  our  heart,  —  that, 
whatever  may  be  the  strength  or  the  numbers  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  when  the  Son  of  God  shall  come  to  take  to  himself  his 
great  power,  she  may  be  found  foremost  among  the  friends  of 
REVIVALS,  —  of  pure  spiritual  piety,  and  engaged  with  untiring 
zeal  amidst  the  van  of  the  Christian  host,  in  making  a  perpetual 
aggression  on  the  territories  of  sin  and  of  death. 
15* 


REMARKS 

ON  THE 

REV.  MH.  BARNES'  SECOND  REVIEW  OF  "EPISCOPACY 
TESTED  BY  SCRIPTURE." 


The  tract  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  remained  more 
than  three  years  without  any  attempt  having  been  made  to 
reply  to  it.  In  March,  1834,  it  was  reviewed  in  the  Christian 
Spectator  by,  as  is  now  avowed,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes.  In  May 
following,  an  answer  to  this  review  appeared  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopalian.  And  in  March,  1835,  Mr.  Barnes  issues  his 
second  review,  in  reply  to  this  answer ;  the  two  reviews  being 
reprinted  in  continuation,  in  a  small  voJurae,  under  the  title, 
"The  Scriptural  Argument  for  Episcopacy  Examined."  The 
volume  has  been  kindly  sent  us  by  the  author.  Ours  is  the 
next  turn,  and  we  accordingly  present  a  rejoinder. 

We  deem  it  a  source  of  unfeigned  gratulalion,  that  our  oppo- 
nent in  this  controversy  has  an  exalted  standing  in  his  own 
denomination,  and  in  the  community  at  large;  that  he  is  a  gen- 
tleman of  talents  and  learning,  and  of  entire  courtesy-r-and  one 
to  whose  piety  and  Christian  attainments  it  is  a  pleasure  to  do 
homage. 

But  be  the  personal  character  and  qualifications  of  contro- 
vertists  what  they  may,  themselves  are  not  infallible.  They 
may  make  mistakes,  argue  inconclusively,  and  even  contradict 
themselves.  And  the  cause  of  truth  requires  that  their  argu- 
ments be  looked  into.  This  is  the  duty  that  now  devolves 
on  us. 

Our  Rev.  opponent  does  us  too  much  honor  in  taking  for 
granted  that  in  our  Tract  and  Answer,  "  the  scriptural  argument 
for  Episcopacy  is  now  fairly  and  entirely  before  the  world." 
There  are  other  scriptural  topics  used  by  other  writers;  such  as 
the  aposlleship  of  Epaphroditus ;  that  of  the  "  messengers 
[apostles]  of  the  churches;"  the  probable  deaconship  of  the 
seventy  disciples ;  the  rise  of  the  twelve  to  their  full  aposlleship 
by  three  steps;  the  remarkable  prophecy  that,  after  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  God  would  "  take  of  [his  people]  for  priests  and 
for  Levites,"  which  means,  as  Old  Testament  language,  ''  for  a 
high  priest,  for  priests,  and  for  Levites  ;"  the  existence  of  those 
three  orders  in  the  Mosaic  Church  ;  and,  —  particularly  if  it  be 
allowed  that  the  whole  Christian  priesthood,  as  well  as  that  of 
Christ  himself,  is  "  aftei  the  order  of  Melchisedcc,"  —  the  fact, 
that  in  the  patriarch^  branch  of  that  order  there  were  both 

(    175   ) 


176  REMARKS    ON    A   SECOND   REVIEW   OF 

"high  priests"  and  "priests."  These  topics  may  all  be  used 
"With  more  or  less  advantage  for  Episcopacy ;  and  they  all  are 
directly  scriptural ;  yet  not  one  of  them  is  adverted  to  in  the 
Tract,  and  only  two  in  the  Answer.  Our  reasoo  was,  that  we 
did  not  need  them ;  we  selected  such  arguments  from  Scripture 
as  would  fall  readily  into  the  consecutive  train  of  an  iaductive 
course  of  reasoning;  and  we  omitted  all  others.  But  we  did  not 
mean  to  renounce  the  right  ta  appeal  to  those  we  did  not  there 
adduce ;  some  of  them  we  have  employed  in  other  compositions. 
Hence,  should  Mr.  Barnes  succeed  in  refuting  "Episcopacy 
Tested  by  Scripture,"  he  has  further  work  before  him,  if  ht 
would  refute  the  whole  scriptural  claim  of  Episcopacy. 

Equally  mistaken  is  our  Rev.  opponent  in  the  allegation  that 
we  discarded,  in  the  Tract,  all  use  of  the  fathers,  and  all  other 
extraneous  considerations.  He  has  enlarged  on  this  allegation 
in  his  second  review,  and  thinks  that  we  have  retracted  the 
admission  with  which  we  set  out,  and  that  we  manifest  an 
apprehension  that  our  cause  requires  propping  from  these 
quarters.  Not  so.  We  have  neither  changed  our  position,  nor 
have  any  fears  for  its  strength.  All  we  have  said  in  our  answer 
is,  that  the  fathers  may  be  used  as  helps  in  interpreting  Serip- 
ture ;  they  form  "aw  historical  basis"  for  investigating  the 
sacred  writings,  as  inspired  history,  on  the  subj,ect  of  Episco- 
pacy: there  was  no  need,  therefore,  we  may  say  in  passing,  of 
quoting  Webster  on  the  word  "basis,"  and  enlarging  so  inge- 
niously on  the  over-ample  significancy  that  may  be  put  on  it. 
In  the  Tract,  we  began  with  these  declarations :  "  The  claim  of 
Episcopacy  to  be  of  Divine  institution,  and  therefore  obligatory 
on  the  Church,  rests  fimdamentaliy  on  the  one  question,  Has 
it  the  authority  of  Scripture  ?  If  it  has  not,  it  is  not  necessarily 
binding."  "No  argument  is  worth  taking  into  account,  that  has 
not  a  palpable  bearing-  on  the  clear  and  naked  topic — the  scrip- 
tural evidence  of  Episcopacy."  Now,  do  sueh  declarations  just- 
ify the  notion  that  "  the  only  books  "  to  be  referred  to  in  the 
discussion,  are  those  of  Scripture?  Are  lexicons  to  be  discarded 
in  a  merely  scr'ipiuraA  argument?  books  of  illustration?  com- 
mentators— seeing  an  inquirer  into  this  subject  is  but  aiming  to 
be  a  commentator?  common-sense  and  common-usage  methods 
of  interpreting?  If  not,  then  why  extrude  the  fathers— not  as 
furnishing  an  independent  authority  for  the  matter  in  question, 
but  as  affording  one  "basis"  among  others,  for  ascertaining  the 
sense  of  the  inspired  authorities?  ^Accordingly  we  announced, 
in  the  third  paragraph  of  the  Tract,  that  although  "  little  or  no 
reference  to  the  fathers"  would  there  be  made,  yet  it  was  "  not 
because  their  testimony  is  depreciated  ;  for  it  is  of  paramount 
value,  in  showing  how  the  Scriptures  connected  with  this  con- 
troversy were  interpreted  by  those  who  knew  how  the  apostles 
themselves  understood  thenL"  Surely  an  announcement  so 
plain  might  have  been  sufficient  to  save  the  Rev.  reviewer  his 
many  and  earnest  remarks  on  this  point.    We  left  the  fathers 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED    BY   §CRIPTDRB.  177 

out  of  our  line  of  argument  in  the  Tract,  except  as  following 
where  others  led  us  ;  neither  did  we  appeal  to  them  even  once, 
except  as  following  the  reviewer  in  the  Answer;  nor  do  we 
purpose  doing  more,  while  the  debate  on  Episcopacy  is  confined 
to  Scripture.  But  this  does  not  imply  that  we  treat  them  as 
non-entities.  Episcopacv  can  do  without  them ;  yet  she  re- 
joices to  be  with  them.  Considering  the  prejudice  against  them, 
in  part,  perhaps,  well  founded,  the  readier  comprehension  of  a 
merely  scriptural  appeal,  and  the  prompt  hearing  that  is  accord- 
ed it,  we  deemed  it  proper  to  submit  to  the  public  an  argument 
of  the  latter  sort — nor  is  our  confidence  in  it  diminished.  But 
every  mind  that  claims  prerogative  for  itself,  must  allow  the 
fair  claims  of  mind  in  general,  of  other  minds,  ccBteris  paribus — 
must  of  course  allow  reasonable  deference  to  the  fathers — and, 
for  matters  of  testimony  concerning  the  things  of  Scripture, 
must  allow  the  early  fathers  to  be  witnesses  of  even  "  paramount 
value,"  provided  the  thing  they  attest  be  really  found  or  inti- 
mated in  that  volume. 

This  doing  justice  to  the  fathers  is,  be  it  noted,  merely  a 
defence  of  the  consistency  of  our  two  productions,  the  Tract 
and  the  Answer.  In  neither  of  them  have  we  made  use  of  those 
authorities  for  the  main  purposes  of  the  discussion.  The 
reviewer  was  mistaken,  in  both  fact  and  construction,  when  he 
allowed  himself  to  write  thus:  "Slight  circumstances  often 
show  strong  inclinations,  and  habits  of  mind.  How  strong  a 
hold  this  reference  to  other  'considerations'  than  the  Scriptures, 
has  taken  upon  the  mind  of  the  author  of  the  Tract,  and  how 
reluctant  he  was  to  part  with  the  '  extraneous'  argument  from 
the  fathers,  is  shown  by  the  fact,  that  he  again  recurs  to  it  in 
the  'Answer,'  and  presents  it  at  much  greater  length."  In  point 
of  fact,  the  "Answer"  does  not  touch  the  argument  from  the 
fathers,  except  in  two  slight  allusions  to  Ignatius ;  and  in  mak- 
ing those  allusions  we  merely  followed  the  reviewer,  who  had 
himself  glanced  at  the  same  writer. 

And  so  as  to  other  "  extraneous"  considerations,  we  adverted 
to  them  in  the  Answer,  because  the  reviewer  maintained  strenu- 
ously that  the  "  burden  of  proof"  lay  on  us  ;  for  how  can  the 
question,  On  whom  lies  this  burden?  be  decided,  without  admit- 
ting extraneous  topics?  or  rather,  the  topics  bearing  on  this 
question  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  extraneous  to  the  scriptural 
argument^  though  some  of  them  are  not  contained  in  Scripture. 
"When  we  read  that  the  sun  stood  still,  we  superinduce  a  strictly 
pertinent  exposition  from  out  of  Scripture,  from  philosophy, 
and  affirm  that  it  was  the  earth  that  stood  still :  this  surely 
is  not  extraneous  to  scriptural  exposition.  What  the  Tract 
objected  to  was,  "  extraneous  and  irrelevant'  matter;  if  relevant, 
no  topic  is  to  be  rejected.  For  example  :  the  objection  founded 
on  annulling  the  orders  of  Non-episcopal  ministers,  and  even  on 
unchurching  Non-episcopalians,  is  a  consideration  both  foreign 
and  irrelevant  to  the  debate  on  Episcopacy ;  because,  if  these 


178  REMARKS  PN    A   SECOND   REVIEW    OP 

consequences  are  involved  in  the  decision,  they  must  be  put  at 
issue,  or  the  debate  be  silenced  :  and  to  argue  against  Episcopal 
claims  because  these  results  may  flow  from  their  establishment, 
is  so  far  to  take  for  granted  that  we  have  not  truth  on  our  side. 
But  we  do  not  stray  into  irrelevant  ground,  when  we  adduce 
the  fads,  that  there  were  or  are  various  grades  in  the  ministries 
of  the  Patriarchal  and  Jewish  Churches,  and  in  those  of  Hea- 
thenism, as  a  presumptive  argument  that  the  same  feature  would 
be  engrafted  on  Christianity  ;  and  when  we  affirm  that  a  similar 
presumption  arises  from  there  being  various  grades  among  civil, 
military,  naval,  corporation,  and  society  officers.  The  reviewer, 
indeed,  asserts  that  his  denomination  fulfils  what  is  demanded 
by  this  latter  presumption,  by  having  the  "offices"  of  pastors, 
ruling  elders  and  deacons:  but  this  we  deem  a  play  on  the  word 
"officers,"  rather  than  a  grasping  of  the  real  argument.  The 
real  argument  is,  that  there  must  be  such  grades  of  officers  as 
will  discharge  the  functions  of  government  as  they  are  usually 
discharged.  Would  he  have  no  higher  civil  officers  than  the 
first  judge  of  a  county,  or  the  president  judge  of  a  district?  yet 
a  county  or  district  is  much  larger  than  a  Presbyterian  parish. 
Would  he  say  that  the  judges,  sheriffs,  and  constables  fill  »tp  the 
analogy  with  ordinary  civil  governments?  If  not,  then  he 
wants  a  governor  over  them,  and  in  that  feature  we  have  so  much 
presumptive  argument  for  a  bishop.  The  presumption  drawn 
from  the  various  grades  of  the  priesthoods  of  other  religions  is 
so  decisively  in  our  favor,  that  the  reviewer  passes  it  in  silence — 
Non-episcopalians  have  but  one  grade  to  minister  in  sacred 
things,  and  no  superior  grade  to  govern  the  other  ministers. 

We  regard  then  our  presumptive  argument  drawn  from  these 
mimerous  facts,  there  being  also  no  exceptions  worth  noticing, 
as  uninjured  by  Mr.  Barnes.  And  we  assert  that  it  clearlj' 
throws  the  burden  of  proof  on  the  parity  side  of  the  question ; 
we  have  a  right  to  enter  on  the  investigation  of  Scripture  with 
the  presumption  that  the  Christian  ministry  was  constituted,  like 
all  other  ministries,  with  a  distinction  of  ranks  within  itself. 
Nor  is  this  right  founded  on  considerations  that  are  either  irre- 
levant or  extraneous  to  the  scriptural  argument. 

We  go  to  Scripture.  We  there  find  mention  of  "  apostles  and 
elders,"  and  of  "bishops  and  deacons;"  elders  and  [presbyter] 
bishops  are  the  same,  by  the  concession  of  both  parties;  and 
thus  we  have  "  apostles,  and  elders,  and  deacons,"  the  three 
orders  of  Episcopacy.  So  far  the  matter  seems  clear.  But 
objections  are  raised.  1.  It  is  alleged,  that  the  expression 
"apostles  and  elders"  is  our  "lonely  Scripture  proof  of  the 
sweeping  claims  that  the  apostles  only  had  the  power  of  ordina- 
tion, and  that  this  was  the  peculiarity  of  the  office,"  But  we 
did  Jiot  adduce  this  scripture  to  show  what  powers  the  apostles 
had,  but  only  to  show  that  they  were  a  class  distinct  from  the 
elders,  and,  as  combined  with  other  scriptural  considerations, 
that  they  were  "superior  to  them  in  ministerial  power  and 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  179 

rights:"  the  nature  of  this  superiority  in  power  and  rights  was 
a  different  branch  of  the  argument;  and  that  certain  powers 
and  rights  belonged  to  the  apostles,  to  the  exclusion  of  presby- 
ters, was  made  to  appear  from  other  scriptures.  Neither  is  it 
quite  correct  to  represent  the  expression  "  apostles  and  elders" 
as  only  one  "passage,"  one  "text,"  as  "  the  solitary  text,"  for  it 
occurs  at  least  six  times,  and  is  a  mode  of  speaking  very  remark- 
ably adhered  to  in  all  that  relates  to  the  council  at  Jerusalem, 
where  the  distinction  in  priestly  rank  would  naturally  be  recog- 
nised in  a  formal  manner.  2.  It  is  further  objected,  that  though 
this  expression  shows  "  that  there  was  a  distinction  of  some  sort 
between  the  apostles  a7?rf  elders,"  it  does  not  prove  the  distinction 
to  have  been  an  official  one.  Taken  alone  it  does  not ;  but  com- 
bined with  the  other  scriptural  considerations  adverted  to,  it  does : 
no  other  explanation,  as  the  Tract  (p.  15)  sufficiently  evinced, 
will  stand.  And  this  is  allowed  by  Mr.  Barnes  with  regard  to 
all  the  other  explanations,  except  one,  to  which,  therefore,  we 
next  turn.  3.  In  his  first  review,  Mr.  B.  regarded  as  the  apos- 
tolic distinction,  their  being  selected  to  bear  witness  to  the 
" sufferings"  and  the  "  resurrection  "  of  Christ.  In  his  second 
review,  he  expands  the  ground  of  their  distinction  —  they  were 
"  appointed  to  be  witnesses  of  his  entire  ministry,  including  the 
fact  of  his  resurrection."  This  expansion  is  unfortunate,  for 
Paul  was  one  of  the  Apostles,  in  the  highest  sense  —  in  every 
sense ;  yet,  though  a  witness  of  the  resurrection,  he  certainly 
was  not  a  witness  of  the  "entire  ministry  "  of  Christ.  Nor  do 
we  read  that  he  witnessed  his  "sufferings."  Hence,  we  may 
regard  the  question  concerning  the  apostolic  distinction,  in 
the  phrase  "apostles  ancZ  elders,"  as  being  between  their  func- 
tion as  special  witnesses  of  the  resurrection,  and  the  official 
superiority  we  claim  for  them.  Now,  what  said  the  Tract  on 
this  point?  "Though  the  twelve  Apostles  were  selected  as  special 
witnesses  of  the  resurrection,  yet  others  received  that  appella- 
tion who  were  not  thus  selected,  as  Timothy,  Silvanus,  Andro- 
nicus,  Junia,"  «&c.  —  we  ought  to  have  added  Barnabas,  and 
referred  also  to  the  "  false  apostles,"  even  down  to  the  year  96, 
in  "the  church  of  Ephesus."  What  did  the  reviewer  say  of 
this  part  of  the  Tract?  not  a  word;  he  omitted  our  allusion  to 
the  Apostles  as  "special  witnesses  of  the  resurrection;"  and 
went  on  to  a  long  argument  to  prove  this  fact,  and  that  in  this 
fact  rested  their  distinction.  To  this  plea  the  Answer  replies, 
"  Was  this  distinction  the  one  that  led  to  the  expression  'apos- 
tles and  elders?'  Surely  not.  Among  those  apostles  was  Bar- 
nabas, and  perhaps  Silas,  neither  of  whom  was  a  special  witness 
of  the  resurrection.  Besides,  the  expression  is  used  with  imme- 
diate reference  to  the  council  at  Jerusalem,  and  why,  in  a  coun- 
cil acting  on  questions  concerning  '  idols,  blood,  things  strangled, 
and  licentiousness,'  should  the  special  witnesses  of  the  resur- 
rection have,  as  such,  peculiar  authority  ?"  Here  are  two  con- 
clusive arguments  against  the  reviewer's  explanation  of  these 


180  REMARKS   ON   A   SECOND  REVIEW   OP 

wor(ls ;  yet  not  the  least  attention  is  given  them  in  the  second 
Review  ,  it  being  merely  alleged  that  we  look  "  no  notice"  of  his 
"  texts."  But  was  not  this  a  sufficient  notice  of  them?  did  it 
not  show,  that  let  his  texts  prove  what  they  might,  they  did  not 
prove  that,  in  the  council  at  Jerusalem,  the  "Apostles"  were 
distinguished  from  the  "  elders,"  as  being  special  witnesses  of 
the  resurrection?  To  what,  however,  do  his  texts  amount? 
they  merely  declare  the  thirteen  Apostles  to  be  "  witnesses,"  to 
be  "chosen  "  as  witnesses,  to  be  "  ordained"  as  witnesses;  but 
does  this  imply  that  they  were  chosen  and  ordained  for  nothing 
else?  if  so,  then  the  thirteen  were  not  chosen  or  ordained  to  be 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  ?  if,  however,  they  were  chosen  and 
ordained  to  be  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  as  Mr.  Barnes  allows  the 
eleven  to  have  been  very  early,  then  their  selection  and  ordina- 
tion was  not  as  special  witnesses  merely ;  and  we  go  to  Scrip- 
ture to  see  what  sort  of  ministers  they  were,  and  in  what  lay 
the  distinction  which  placed  them,  and  the  others  called  apostles, 
in  a  class  separate  from  the  ministers  called  elders.  By  such 
an  appeal  to  Scripture  we  find,  as  the  Tract  will  show,  that  the 
apostles  ordained,  and  presbyters  did  not ;  that  the  apostles  had 
authority  over  presbyters ;  and  that  they  exercised  discipline 
over  their  heads. 

But  Mr.  Barnes  will  perhaps  remind  us  that  we  have  still 
omitted  one  of  his  texts — "  Am  I  not  an  apostle  ?  am  I  not  free  ? 
have  I  not  seen  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  ?  are  not  ye  my  work  in 
the  Lord  ?"  From  these  words  he  infers,  in  common  with  some 
other  writers,  that  to  have  "  seen"  Christ  was  an  essential  quali- 
fication for  the  apostleship.  But  surely,  in  the  first  place,  this 
is  taking'  the  drift  of  Paul's  argument  for  granted,  for  we  may 
just  as  well  understand  the  passage  as  giving  four  separate 
topics  of  animadversion  on  certain  Corinthians  for  their  oppo- 
sition to  him,  as  regard  the  third  topic  in  the  light  of  a  proof  o{ 
the  first.  In  the  next  place,  if  the  third  topic  is  a  proof  of  the 
first,  the  second  ought  to  be  the  same,  and  then  "  freedom,"  i.  e. 
the  right  to  take  clerical  maintenance,  or  decline  it,  was  one  of 
the  marks  of  the  thirteen  pre-eminent  "  apostles !"  whereas  it 
belonged  to  every  minister.  So  of  the  fourth  topic ;  were  not 
Paul  and  all  the  others  "  apostles "  as  soon  as  they  had  their 
commission,  and  before  they  had  done  any  of  their  "  work  in 
the  Lord?"  We  say  then,  that  the  Non-episcopal  argument 
drawn  from  this  passage  is  utterly  valueless.  Dr.  Hammond 
gives  the  true  meaning — ihe  full  meaning,  for  it  cannot  be  made 
to  imply  more,  without  a  pctitio  principu\  and  without  making 
nonsense  of  the  second  and  fourth  topics.  "  I  may  surely  say 
four  things  of  myself:  L  That  I  am  an  apostle  of  Christ,  called 
from  heaven  immediately  to  that  office ;  2.  That  I  had  no  obli- 
gation 10  do  what  I  have  done  among  you,  that  is,  to  preach  on 
free  cost  to  you,  as  I  have;  that  I  discern  my  Christian  liberty 
80  well  that  I  know  T  might  have  done  otherwise ;  3.  That 
though  I  was  none  of  Christ's  followers  here  on  earthy  yet  I 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  181 

have  been  equalled  to  thera  by  seeing  and  being  spoken  to  by 
Christ  out  of  heaven;  and,  4.  Tliat  I  am  certainly  he  that  con- 
verted you  to  the  faith,  that  planted  the  Gospel  at  Corinth,  and 
so  surely  am  not  unworthy  to  be  considered  by  you."  To  close 
this  part  of  the  discussion,  we  suggest,  that  regarding  these  four 
topics  as  separate^  which  they  certainly  are,  St.  Paul  here  makes 
his  ''  apostleship"  a  privilege  entirely  distinct  from  that  of  his 
having  "  seen  Jesus  Christ." 

When  Paul  exclaimed,  "Are  all  apostles?"  he  obviously 
allowed  that  some  might  be  apostles  who  were  not  special  wit- 
nesses of  the  resurrection.  If  none  others  could  be  apostles,  the 
exclamation  would  have  been  against  an  argument  of  straw. 
The  same  result  flows  from  the  case  of  the  "  false  apostles,"  who 
continued  their  pretensions  down  to  the  year  96.  (Rev.  ii.  2.) 
There  could  have  been  no  false  apostles,  had  there  been  no  real 
ones  but  the  thirteen — none  but  those  who  were  special  witnesses 
of  the  resurrection.  Unless  the  true  apostles  had  become 
numerous,  the  false  would  have -had  no  chance  for  their  impos- 
ture. And  in  the  year  96  none  of  the  thirteen  remained  but 
St.  John ;  yet  there  were  then  so  many  apostles  that  pretenders 
could  claim  the  oflice  without  being  instantly  rejected  as  not 

having  been  "  special  uitnesses." We  hope  the  Rev.  reviewer 

is  noiD  satisfied  with  our  "  notice  "  of  his  "  proof-texts." 

We  stated  in  the  Tract  that  "  it  would  not  be  questioned"  that 
the  apostles  were  officially  superior  to  the  elders.  Our  Rev. 
opponent,  without  denying  this  assertion,  i.  e.  "  it  will  not  be 
questioned,"  placed  it  in  a  ridiculous  light.  We  then  adduced 
several  Presbyterian  authorities,  who  allowed  the  apostles'  offi- 
cial superiority,  and  who  thus  proved  that  this  assertion  of  ours 
was  fairly  made.  To  this  the  reviewer  replies,  that  we  quoted 
them  "  to  prove  that  the  apostles  were  superior  to  the  elders  ;" 
whereas  we  brought  them,  not  to  prove  the  fact,  but  merely  that 
the  fact  "  would  not  be  questioned"  by  Presbyterians — and  surely, 
for  this  purpose,  their  sentiments  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 
"  extraneous  considerations."  The  reviewer  further  replies, 
that  these  divines  only  assert  the  apostles  to  be  superior  to  the 
eld*ers  "  in  some  respects,  or,  that  there  was  a  distinction  between 
them."  Not  so  ;  they  do  not  speak  thus  vaguely  ;  the  extracts 
under  four  of  the  six  heads  assert  their  "  official"  superiority ; 
that  from  Dr.  Miller,  their  "vested  authority  over  other  minis- 
ters ;"  and  Dr.  Campbell  calls  them  "  universal  bishops,"  as 
distinguished  from  local  pastors  or  parochial  bishops.  On  the 
point  that  the  ministerial  superiority  of  the  apostles  "  would 
not  be  questioned,"  the  authority  of  these  divines  was  ex- 
plicit, and  sufficient  to  justify  the  assertion.  Nor  do  we  per- 
ceive that  that  assertion  is  even  now  denied  or  questioned  by 
the  reviewer. 

In  our  Answer  to  the  first  Review,  we  expanded  a  certain 
note  in  the  Tract,  and  showed  t.iat  the  Apostle  Paul  exercised 
discipline,  and  claimed  the  jight  of  exercising  discipline,  in 
16 


182  REMARKS   ON   A   SECOND   REVIEW   OF 

churches  were  there  were  elders  ;  the  cases  recorded  being  the 
churches  of  Corinth  and  Epliesus.     To  tliis  our  Rev.  opponent 
objects— 1.  That  it  is  "remarkable"  that  only  the  disciplinary 
acts  of  Paul  are  mentioned  in  Scripture,  not  those  of  the  other 
Apostles  :  but  is  it  not  just  as  "  remarkable"  that,  in  the  Acts, 
after  the  travels  and  doings  of  Paul  are  fairly  introduced  to 
notice,  almost  nothing  is  said  of  the  travels  and  doings  of  the 
rest  of  the  thirteen  ?  is  it  not  just  as  remarkable  that  Paul  fur- 
nishes fourteen  epistles,  and  all  the  rest  only  seven?  2.  He  objects 
that  so  few  instances  of  discipline  are  recorded  :  but  we  reply, 
that  we  must  take  the  record  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  we  find  it, 
and  make  it  our  authority ;  that  there  are  no  cases  recorded  of 
discipline  by  presbyters;  and  that  we  adduced  passages  in  which 
the  right  to  inflict  discipline   is  claimed  by  an  apostle  indivi- 
dually, without  intimating  the  operation  or  the  co-operation  of 
the  presbyters  concerned  ;  which  passages  the  reviewer  leaves 
unnoticed.     3.  He  objects  that  in  the  cases  of  discipline  exer- 
cised by  Paul,  Timothy  and  Titus  were  present  and  unnoticed, 
which  is    so  much  disparagement  of  their  Episcopal  claims. 
Here  also  we  have  an  easy  reply  ;  we  never  said,  as  the  reviewer 
alleges,  that  Titus  was  in  Corinth  or  in  Ephesus  when  these  acts 
of  discipline  respectively  were  inflicted  ;  neither  does  he  attempt 
to  prove  it.     That  Timothy  was  not  in  Corinth  at  that  time,  or 
not  expected  to  be  there,  though  he  had  been  sent  thither,  is 
evident  from  the  last  chapter  of  the  first  epistle— "t/Timotheus 
come,"  &c.;  and  that  the  discipline  mentioned  had  been  inflicted 
at  Ephesus  before  Timothy  was  placed  there,  is  twice  allowed 
by  the  reviewer  himself;  the  contrary  has  never  been  main- 
tained by  us ;  and  Paul  speaks  of  it  as  a  past  occurrence  in 
writing  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy;    it  happened  previous  to 
the  time  of  Timothy's  being  put  in  charge  of  that  diocese. 
How  then  stand  these  cases?  just  as  was  stated  in  our  Tract 
and  Answer.    Paul  individually  inflicts  discipline  in  Corinth 
and  Ephesus,  though  there  were  elders  in  both  churches,  who, 
on  the  Presbyterian  theory,  ought  to  have  inflicted  it.  4.  But  it  is 
further  objected,  that  they  were  peculiar  cases;  bodily  disease, 
miraculously  produced,  being  part  of  the  penally;  and  none  but 
the  Apostles  (the  thirteen)  having  this  miraculous  power.   Such 
we  understand  to  be  the  reviewer's  argument.    We  think,  how- 
ever, it  is  of  no  force.     In  the  case  at  Corinth,  the  offender  was 
"  delivered  unto  Satan,  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh  ;"  but  in 
that  at  Ephesus,   the  offenders    were  only   "  delivered   unto 
Satan."    Now,  as  to  the  "  delivery  to  Satan,"  it  means  only 
excommunication — so  we  think,  with  many  commentators — and 
It  certainly  need  not  mean  any  thing  more:  as  the  conversion  of 
men,  and  bringing  them,  into  the  Church,  was  "turning  them 
from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God,  that  they  might  receive  for- 
giveness of  sins ;"  so  when  the.sins  of  any  one  were  "  retained," 
and  he  was  excommunicated,  he  was  ejected  from  the  favor  of 
God,  and  given  back  to  Satan.    In  the  Presbyterian  Forms  of 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  183 

Process,  (1. 15,)  one  of  these  very  passages  is  quoted  as  authority 
for  "the  highest  censure  of  the  Church."*  Such  was  the  disci- 
pline in  the  cases  at  Ephesus ;  and  it  was  the  act,  not  of  the 
presbyters,  but  of  an  apostle.  As  to  the  expression,  "  the 
destruction  of  the  flesh."  some  commentators  do  not  interpret  it 
of  a  miraculous  infliction ;  others  do :  conceding  the  latter,  we 
are  to  remember  that  there  were  "  worlcers  of  miracles"  in 
Corinth;  and  therefore,  if  that  church  or  its  elders  had  the 
power  of  supreme  discipline,  they  could  have  exercised  it  even 
with  this  extraordinary  penalty,  without  the  intervention  of 
St.  Paul;  yet  he  alone  does  this  act,  which  proves  that  supreme 
discipline  was  not  intrusted  to  either  the  church  or  its  eldera. 
Such  was  the  mode  of  passing  the  "highest  censure"  on  the 
offender  at  Corinth. 

It  is  further  alleged,  however,  by  our  Rev.  opponent,  that  ia 
the  context  of  one  of  these  passages.  (I  Cor.  v.)  "  it  is  supposed 
that  they  [the  church  at  Corinth]  did  themselves  usually  exer- 
cise discipline,"  nay,  that  Paul  "  supposes  that  it  ought  to  have 
been  done  in  this  case."  To  these  two  allegations  we  oppose 
the  reviewer's  own  words  in  the  next  paragraph  but  one — "  The 
circumstances  of  the  early  churches  were  such  as  to  make  this 

apostolic  intervention  proper,  and  even  indispensable In 

most  cases  their  founders  were  with  them  but  a  few  weeks. f  and 
then  left  them  under  the  care  of  elders  ordained  from  among 
themselves.  Those  elders  would  be  poorly  qualified  to  dis- 
charge the  functions  of  their  office The  churches  must  be 

imperfectly  organized;  unaccustomed  to  rigid  discipline;  ex- 
posed to  many  temptations ;  easily  drawn  into  sin  ;  and  subject 
to  great  agitation  and  excitement."  Now,  if  such  were  the  con- 
dition of  both  elders  and  people  at  Corinth,  how  could  Paul 
have  expected  them  to  exercise  discipline,  either  in  tliis  aggra- 
vated case,  or  "usually?"  or  how  can  the  reviewer  imagine 
that  Paul  looked  for  their  action,  when  he  declares  that  it  was 
morally  impossible  for  them  to  act  ?  Nay,  if  such  were  "  the 
early  churches,"  and  their  elders,  how  can  he  claim  any  scrip- 
ture whatever  for  their  having  discipline  intrusted  to  them? — 
such  a  fact  would  be  a  final  presumptive  argument  against 
interpreting  Scripture  to  that  effect.  He  pleads,  however,  the 
clause,  "Do  not  ye  judge  them  that  are  within"  the  church? 
So  doubtless  their  elders  did  in  lighter  matters,  even  to  the  lesser 
excommunication;   but  the  action  of  Paul  in  this  case  shows 


♦  In  the  Biblical  Repertory  for  April.  1835,  (p.  232.)  we  find  the  same  use  of  the 
stronger  of  these  passages,  bv  the  "  Antiburgher  Synod,"  in  Scotland, — "  Accord- 
ingly the  sentence  of  the  greater  excommunmcation  was,  on  tlje  9tli  August, 
1749,  pronounced  upon  the  aforesaid  persons ;  '  casting  them  out  from  the  commu- 
nion of  the  Cliurch  nf  Christ  ;  delivering  them  unto  Satan,  for  the  destruction 
of  the  flesh,'"  &c.  When  Presbyterians  want  tliis  passage  of  Scripture  for  their  own 
purposes,  tliey  perceive  very  readily  that  it  does  not  relate  to  a  supernatural  penalty. 

t  At  Corintli,  Paul  "coniinueda  year  and  six  months,"  and  "  after  this  tarried 
there  yet  a  good  while."  (Acts  xviii.  11,  18.) 


184  REMARKS    ON    A    SECOND   REVIEW    OF 

that  they  did  not  inflict  the  greater.  The  clause,  indeed,  may 
not  refer  to  official  acts,  in  the  Corinthian  church,  but  only  to 
the  personal  discountenance  of  offenders ;  hence  Doddridge 
says,  "Do  not  even  you,  in  your  more  prwate  capacity,  judge 
those  that  are  within  ?  I  have  taught  you  that  every  private 
Christian  should  be  concerned  in  his  station  to  maintain  the  disci- 
pline of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  to  bear  his  testimony  against 
disorderly  walkers,  which  may  at  present  have  a  place  in  it." 

So  of  the  case  at  Thessalonica — "  If  any  man  obey  not  our 
word  by  this  epistle,  note  that  man,  and  have  no  company  with 
him,  that  he  may  be  ashamed."  Mr.  Barnes  declares  that  this 
was  a  direction  to  that  church  "  to  exercise  discipline."  But 
how  can  he  make  this  appear  ?  The  natural  sense  of  the  words 
is  that  Christians,  in  their  "  private  capacity,"  should  avoid  such 
offenders;  it  does  not  extend  to  official  proceedings.  He  who 
contends  for  the  latter  view,  must  allow  also  that  "the  elect 
lady"  exercised  discipline — "  If  any  man  come  unto  you,  and 
bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him  not  into  your  house,  neither 
bid  him  God  speed."  Our  Rev.  opponent  will  see  that  his  mode 
of  arguing  proves  too  much.  He  surely  does  not  suppose  that 
ecclesiastical  discipline  was  committed  to  a  "  lady,"  or  to  a 
"  lady  and  her  children." 

The  reviewer  brings  into  fresh  notice  the  elders  of  Ephesus, 
and  those  addressed  by  St.  Peter,  and  concludes  that  they 
"  were  intrusted  with  the  pastoral  care  to  the  fullest  extent  .  .  . 
instructing,  directing,  and  governing  the  ^ocA;."  Who  denies 
this  ?  not  we,  certainly ;  except  so  far  as  an  appeal  to  the  bishop 
qualifies  the  expression  "  fullest  extent."  Neither  do  "  the 
canons  of  the  Episcopal  Church."  But  where  does  he  find  that 
elders  "  ruled"  elders?  that  presbyter-bishops  governed  presby- 
ter-bishops ?  That  is  the  point ;  and  the  Non-episcopal  world 
has  long  been  challenged,  but  in  vain,  to  make  it  good..  But  he 
is  unlucky  in  conceding  thus  plainly  ^^  pastoral  care  to  the /idl- 
est extent"  to  the  eiders  of  Ephesus  :  for  he  says,  in  the  course 
of  a  few  pages,  "  In  our  Review  we  showed  that  all  the  facts  in 
the  case  of  the  elders  at  Ephesus  are  met  by  the  supposition  that 
they  were  riding  elders"  What!  Have  ruling  elders  "the 
pastoral  care  to  the/idlest  extent  ?"  are  they  deemed  "  bishops" 
by  the  Presbyterians;  the  Ephesian  elders  being  thus  called  in 
Acts  XX.? — See  also  the  Presbyterian  Form  of  Government, 
ch.  iii.  Of  these  "bishops"  Mr.  Barnes  says — "There  is  no 
counsel  given  them  about  the  proper  mode  of  administering 
the  sacraments,"  implying  that  they  had  not  the  right  to  do  so  ; 
yet  of  those  at  Philippi  he  writes — "  The  other  class,  the  '  bish- 
ops,' constitute  the  preaching  order,  or  the  clergy,  those  to 
whom  were  committed  the  preaching  of  the  word,  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments,"  &c.  What  are  we  to  make  of  these 
contradictory  expositions?  Is  it  intended  to  save  the  Presbyte- 
rian argument,  that  there  were  no  "  clergy  "  at  Ephesus,  only 
"ruling  elders,"  when  Timothy  was  placed  there?    And  is  it 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED   BY   SCRIPTDRE.  185 

asserted  that,  though  Philippi  included  "a  group  of  churches,'* 
Ephesus  had  but  "  one  flock,"  the  former  in  the  year  64,  ihe 
latter  in  96,  to  elude  the  Episcopal  argument  drawn  from  "  the 
angel  of  the  church  of  Ephesus?"  We  cannot  impute  the 
unfairness  of  a  covert  motive  lo  our  Rev.  opponent.  But  we 
have  a  right  to  express  our  regret,  that  he  was  not  more  vigilant 
against  mistakes  that  amount  to  inconsistency. 

He  says  that  "  no  one  will  pretend  that  bishops  are  referred 
to"  in  the  passages,  "  remember  them  wliich  have  the  rule  over 
you,"  "  obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you."  This  is  a  mis- 
take as  to  "  one  "  person  at  least ;  for  we  made  the  "  assertion," 
in  the  Tract,  (p.  2.-,)  that  they  referred  to  "the  Episcopal 
ministry:"  other  writers  also  take  the  same  view  of  these  pas- 
sages. We  even  intimated  that  they  amount  to  a  "  command" 
to  conform  to  that,  the  only  scriptural  model  of  the  holy  office. 
And  we  now  intimate  the  same  of  the  passage,  "know  them 
which  labor  among  you,  and  are  over  you  in  the  Lord"— and 
this  we  do,  though  our  Rev.  opponent  thinks  "  there  can  be 
no  question  "  that  it  is  "  applied  to  presbyters."  Our  reason  he 
will  see  in  the  Tract. 

He  "asks  for  a  solitary  passage  which  directs  apostles  or 
prelates  to  administer  discipline."  If  he  means  to  halt  at  th© 
words  "apostles"  and  "  prelates,"  he  will  halt  on  words  only,  not 
on  things.  We  call  Timothy  an  apostle,  and  Timothy  and  Titus 
prelates;  but  call  them  what  you  will,  they  -individually^  with 
no  mention  of  the  elders,  are  desired  to  "  administer  discipline  " 
—yes,  frequently,  as  the  Tract  fully  evinced—''  that  thou  niight- 
est  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine — against  an 
elder  receive  not  [thoit]  an  accusalioiv,  but  before  two  or  three 
witnesses— them  that  sin,  rebuke  [Mow]  before  all— I  charge 
th£e,  that  thou  observe  these  things — from  such  turn  [t-hoii] 
away,  or,  such  turn  [thoii]  away — whose  mouths  must  be  stop- 
ped   wherefore,  rebuke  [thoiC]  them  sharply,  that  they  may 

be  sound  in  the  faith — rebuke  [thou'\  with  all  authority.  Let  no 
man  despise  thee — a  man  that  is  a  heretic  [do.  tho'ii]  reject," 
All  these  directions  to  administer  discipline  are  given  to  indivir 
dual  ministers,  over  the  heads  of  the  elders..  Add  to  these  the 
passages  in  which  the  actual  infliction  of  discipline,  or  the 
RIGHT  to  inflict  it,  are  mentioned,  pertaining  to  apostles  and 
other  individuals,  without  reference  to  elders,  as  given  in  our 
Tract  and  Answer,  and  the  evidence  for  this  feature  of  Episco- 
pacy will  be  superabundant.  How,  in  the  face  of  the  first  por- 
tion of  this  evidence,  that  relating  to.  Timothy,  besides  what 
refers  to  his  right  to  ordain — how  eoukJ  the  reviewer  say,  that 
"  the  epistles  to  Timothy  ....  contain  no  description  of  his  own 
office  as  a  prekte!"  they  da  describe  that  office— they  describe 
it  amply  and  clearly. 

So  elear  is  the  testimony  of  "  the  writings  of  Paul "  of  Timo- 
thy's "having  first  received  the  episcopate  at  Ephesus,"  that 
Eusebius— so  at  least  it  appears  to  us— recognises  that  testi* 
16* 


186  REMARKS  ON   A     SECOND   REVIEW  OF 

mony.  In  B.  3,  ch.  4,  of  which  the  title  is,  "  The  first  Succes- 
sors of  the  Apostles,"  he  says,  "  But  how  many  and  which  of 
these,  actuated  by  a  genuine  zeal,  were  judged  suitable  to 
feed  the  churches  est-ablished  by  these  apostles,  it  is  not  easy  to 
say,  any  further  than  may  be  gathered  from  the  writings  of 
Paul.  For  he,  indeed,  had  innumerable  fellow-laborers,  or  as 
he  himself  calls  them,  fellow-soldiers  in  the  Church.  Of  these 
the  greater  part  are  honored  with  an  indelible  remembrance  by 
him  in  his  epistles,  where  he  gives  a  lasting  testimony  concern- 
ing them.  Luke  also,  in  his  Acts,  speaking  of  his  friends,  men- 
lions  them  by  name.  Timothy,  indeed,  is  recorded  as  having 
first  received  the  episcopate  at  Ephesus,  as  Titus  also  was 
appointed  over  the  churches  in  Crete."  (Cruse's  Eusebius, 
p.  84.)  Eusebius  speaks  of  the  comparative  insufficiency  of  his 
other  sources  of  information  on  this  point,  as  contrasted  with 
"the  writings  of  Paul."  Those  "  \vrilings,"  then,  must  have 
been  his  authority,  or  at  least  sustained  him,  in  saying  that 
Timothy  was  set  "over"  the  church  at  Ephesus— he  construed 
them  as  Episcopalians  do.  He  did  the  same  with  the  scrip- 
tures relating  to  Titus. 

The  reviewer  still  insists  that  Timothy  is  not  called  an  "  apos- 
tle "  in  Scripture.  What  are  the  facts  ?  Paul  begins,  1  Thess., 
in  the  name  of  himself,  Silvanus,  and  Timothy — in  the  second 
diapter  he  says,  "  IVe  might  have  been  burdensome  to  you  as 
the  apostles  of  Christ  " — and  that  he  does  not  use  the  plural 
number  in  the  singular  sense,  is  evident  in  the  next  verse  but  one, 
"  we  were  willing  to  have  imparted  unto  you  our  own  souls." 
Now,  as  one  man  has  but  one  "  soul,"  if  Paul  were  speaking 
of  himself  only,  he  would  have  said  "  our  own  soul;"  but  as  he 
uses  the  plural  word  "  souls,"  it  is  clear  that  he  alluded  there  to 
Silvanus  and  Timothy  with  himself.  Just  as  clear,  of  course,  it 
is,  that  he  alluded  to  all  the  three  in  the  phrase  "  apostles  of 
Christ  " — and  thus  Silvanus  and  Timothy  are  called  "  apos- 
tles" in  Scripture.  But  the  reviewer  objects  that,  in  a  previous 
verse  of  the  same  chapter,  Paul  speaks  of  the  persecution  at 
Philippi — "•uje  were  shamefully  entreated;"  and  that  as  only 
Paul  and  Silas  were  beaten  and  put  in  prison,  Timothy  was  not 
with  them  in  that  city ;  and  that  thus  the  plural  sense  of  "  apos- 
tles" is  untenable.  We  liave  answered,  that  Timothy  is  declared 
to  have  been  with  Paul  before  and  after  that  persecution, 
and  that  there  is  no  intimation  that  they  were  parted  in  the 
meantime.  We  further  answer — though  only  Paul  and  Silas 
were  beaten  and  imprisoned,  others  then  belonged  to  their 
company,  as  appears  from  the  expression,  "  the  same  followed 
Paul  and  ws,"  (Acts  xvi.  17,)  which  implies  that  besides  Silas, 
Luke  the  writer,  and  probably  others,  were  in  Paul's  retinue  at 
the  time;  these  were  not  so  severely  used;  and  this  destroys 
the  ground  taken  by  the  reviewer,  that  Timothy  could  not 
then  have  been  in  Philippi,  simply  because  he  did  not  suffer  as 
much  as  those  two.    Again :  Paul  says  to  the  Philippians,  of 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  187 

Timothy,  "  Ye  know  the  'proof  of  him,  that,  as  a  son  with  the 
father,  he  hath  served  with  ine  in  the  Gospel,"  (ii.  22  0  this 
impUes  that  the  Philippians  had  become  personally  acquainted 
with  Timothy,  and  whenhewas  with  them  hi  company  with  Paul; 
yet  it  is  not  recorded  that  Paul  and  Timothy  had  been  together 
at  Philippi,  except  at  the  time  of  the  persecution  mentioned  ; 
it  is  only  said  they  were  afterward  in  Macedonia:  hence  Dod- 
dridsje  and  Macknight  agree,  that  in  the  verse  quoted,  Paul 
alludes  to  Timothy's  being  in  that  city  at  the  time  mentioned. 
Indeed  v.'e  know  of  no  one,  but  Mr.  Barnes,  who  denies  this 
fact.  That  Timothy  is  left  out  of  sight  in  some  parts  of  the 
narrative,  in  Acts  xvi.  and  xvii.,  may  have  been  owing  to  his 
youth,  and  his  not  being  deemed  by  the  persecutors  so  import- 
ant a  person  as  Paul  and  Silas;  besides  their  being  milder 
with  him  on  account  of  his  Gentile  descent — they  "looked 
upon  Paul  and  Silas,"  says  Doddridge,  "as  much  more  consi- 
derable than  Timothy  and  Luke,"— Hear,  on  the  meaning  of  the 
word  "  apostles,"  the  opinion  of  Macknight:  "The  apostle  and 
Ms  assistants  were  not  'influenced  by  any  of  those  motives 
which  actuate  impostors.  Instead  of  seeking  to  make  ourselves 
powerful  or  rich  by  the  Gospel,  we  never  demanded  the  honor 
of  obedience,  nor  of  maintenance,  either  from  you  or  from 
others;  although  we  could  have  been  burdensome  to  you  in 
both  these  respects,  as  the  apostles  of  Christ.  The  truth  is,  as 
apostles,  they  had  authority  from  their  Master  to  enjoin  their 
disciples  what  was  fit."  This  he  says  in  the  "View"  preceding 
the  chapter.  In  the  translation  he  says,  "  As  Christ's  messen- 
gers"— so  decidedly  does  the  word  a-noaroKoi.  apply  to  all  the 
three  who  join  in  tiieepislle.  Hear  also  the  opinion  of  T.  Hart- 
well  Home :  he  says,  in  his  Analysis  of  the  Epistle,  "  The 
character,  behavior  and  views  of  the  first  preachers  of  the  Gos- 
pel are  an  evidence  of  its  truth.  The  apostles  and  their  assist- 
ants, by  preaching  the  Gospel,  every  where  brought  upon  them- 
selves all  manner  of  present  evils,  without  obtaining  the  least 
temporal  advantage."  Again,  "  The  second  argument,  taken  from 
the  character,  behavior,  and  views  of  its  first  preachers."'  This 
Divine  regards  Paul  as  including  his  "  assistants"  with  himself, 
through  the  whole  passage  in  which  the  word  "  apostles"  is 
found  ;  it  follows,  of  course,  that  they  also  are  here  called  apos- 
tles. Hear,  yet  further,  the  opinion  of  Matthew  Henry :  he  says, 
on  this  chapter,  Paul  "  could  appeal  to  the  Thessalonians,  how 
faithfully  he,  and  Silas,  and  Timotheus .  .  .  .had  discharged 
their  office"— "He  tells  them  theij  might  have  used  greater 
authority  as  apostles."*  We  trust  we  have  now  settled  the  two 
points— that  Timothy  was  at  Philippi,  at  the  period  mentioned 
— and  that  Paul  does  call  him  and  Silas  "  apostles."  Some 
other  objections  in  Mr,  Barnes'  first  review  had  been  already 

♦  We  add,  as  authorities  for  including  Timothy  and  Silvanus  under  the  appel- 
lation "apostles,"  the  following— Estius,  (Po.  Syn.)  Whitby,  J.  Brown,  of  Had' 
<^ngton,  and  A.  Clarice. 


188  REMARKS   ON    A   SECOND   REVIEW   OF 

answered  in  the  Protestant  Episcopalian  for  March  and  Novem- 
ber, 1831.  On  the  objection  that  Paul,  in  some  places,  calls 
Timothy  only  his  "  b/other,"  we  may  add,  that  Peter  calls 
Paul  "our  beloved  brother  f  James  says  to  Paul,  "  Thou  seest, 
brother;''^  Paul  says,  '•  I  found  not  Titus,  my  brother ;^^  Ana- 
nias says  to  Paul,  already  an  apostle,  ^^  Brother  Saul,  receive  thy 
sight :"  this  is  evidence  enough  that  the  appellation  does  not 
imply,  as  given  to  Timothy,  that  he  was  not  an  apostle. 

The  cliief  value  of  this  fact— that  Timothy  is  called  an  "apos- 
tle" in  Scripture— is,  its  routing  finally  the  Non-episcopal  plea, 
that  Timothy  had  superior  power  at  Ephesus  merely  as  an 
"evangelist."  An  apostle  had  full  power,  as  such,  and  could 
have  nothing  added  to  it  from  having  also  tlie  latter  designa- 
tion. Philip  and  Timothy  are  the  only  individuals  to  whom 
that  designation  is  applied  j  and  there  is  no  evidence  that 
Philip  had  any  special  power  as  an  evangelist  j  neither  can 
there  be  evidence  to  that  effect  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  since  his 
apostleship  gave  him  all  the  power  a  minister  can  have.  Fare^ 
well,  then,  to  this  puny  argument!  Our  Rev.  opponent  had 
too  much  penetration  and  accuracy  of  judgment  to  make  any 
use  of  it  in  either  of  his  reviews. 

We  may  here  add,  in  passing,  that  the  fact  of  Timothy's 
being  an  "apostle,"  shows  that  he  could  not  have  been  ordained 
as  such  ,."  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands"  of  a  Presbyterian 
"  presbytery." 

So  again  ;  Timothy  being  an  "apostle,"  the  direction  of  Paul 
to  him — "The  things  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me  among 
many  witnesses,  the  same  comwit  thou  to  faithful  men,  who 
shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also,"  is  a  "command"  to  transmit 
the  apostolic  office.  That  passage  is  understood  by  all  the 
commentators  now  within  our  reach,  of  the  perpetuation  of  the 
ministerial  office--seeM.  Henry,  Doddridge,  Macknight,  Poole's 
Annotations,  Hammond — and  as  the  grade  of  that  office  held 
by  Timothy  from  Paul  was  the  apostolic,  ihat^  "  the  same" 
must  have  been  the  grade  he  was  to  "  commit,"  to  transmit  for 
the  purpose  of  succession. 

Yet,  further:  Timothy  being  an  "apostle,"  and  being  "com- 
manded "  to  transmit  the  apostleship  to  successors,  we  have 
clear  enough  evidence  of  the  ministerial  grade  of  the  "  angel  of 
the  Church  of  Ephesus"  some  thirty  years  afterward.  If  he 
was  not  Timothy  the  "apostle"  himself,  he  was  one  of  his 
apostolic  successors.  Such,  likewise,  of  course,  were  the  other 
six  "  angels." 

These  are  unavoidable  results  from  the  fact  that  Timothy  is 
denominated  an  "apostle"  by  St.  Paul.  Some  of  them  are 
indeed  sufficiently  established  by  the  general  argument,  that 
Timothy  individually  held  a  station  in  the  Church  superior  to 
that  of  the  presbyter-bishops,  and  that  Paul  gives  directions 
what  such  ministers  as  Timothy  are  to  do  "till  the  appearing  of 
Jesus  Christ,"  i.  e.  till  the  consummation  of  things.    Add,  how- 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  189 

ever,  to  the  general  argument  this  specific  one,  and  the  evidence 
for  Episcopacy,  and  the  permanence  of  Episcopacy,  is  such  as 
no  talent  or  zeal  can  overthrow. 

Our  Rev.  opponent  refers,  for  the  support  of  part  of  his 
argument,  to  Bishop  Slillingfleet — forgetful  of  the  rule,  that 
writers  who  have  contradicted  themselves  are  not  to  be  appealed 
to,  on  either  side.  Bishop  Slillingfleet  unsaid,  in  later  life,  what 
he  had  said  against  Episcopacy  in  his  earlier  career. 

As  to  the  supposed  break  in  the  chain  of  the  English  Episco- 
pal succession,  in  the  cases  of  Aydan  and  Finan,  we  refer  the 
Rev.  reviewer  to  a  full  reply  in  the  Churchman,  transferred  to 
the  Protestant  Episcopalian  for  December,  1834.  This  objection 
may  do  for  those  who  are  objection-hunters — it  is  not  worthy  of 
the  notice  of  our  able  and  candid  opponent.  He  cannot  suppose 
that  it  has  any  bearing  on  the  questions — Is  Episcopacy  set  forth 
in  Scripture  ?  Is  it  there  set  forth  as  a  permanent  institution  ? 
If  these  questions  be  answered  in  the  negative,  there  is  no 
need  of  seeking  a  break  in  the  Episcopal  succession.  If  in  the 
affirmative,  then,  indubitably,  we  must  presume  the  succession 
good,  except  where  clear  evidence  exists  to  the  contrary,  or  at 
least  a  doubt  of  overwhelming  magnitude.  There  is,  however, 
no  sufficient  reason  to  think  Uiat  the  Episcopal  succession  failed 
in  the  case  of  these  two  persons,  and  the  presumptive  argument 
is  so  entirely  against  it,  that  the  objection  is  unworthy  of  notice. 
Successive  ordinations  must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  depend 
mainly  for  their  evidence  on  notoriety — for  manuscript  records 
of  such  things  are  liable  to  mistakes  and  perversions,  and  also  to 
extinction — "  there  are  slight  mistakes  in  the  genealogy  of  our 
Lord,  and  that  of  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  not  uniformly 
perfect" — and  in  the  records  of  the  ordinations  of  the  multitudes 
of  bishops  that  have  existed,  were  they  all  preserved  by  suc- 
cessive copies,  there  would  unquestionably  be  errors  innume- 
rable, and  now  beyond  correction.  Notoriety,  however,  is  an 
all-sufficient  authentication  of  a  matter  of  fact.  And  on  the 
claims  of  notoriety,  we  may  safely  rest  all  Episcopal  consecra- 
tions in  the  seventh  century.  Bede,  the  historian  referred 
to  in  raising  the  objection  before  us,  has  obviously  been  mis- 
understood. 

The  final  topic,  in  the  way  of  argument,  of  the  reviewer,  is 
this — one  scriptural  example  of  a  Presbyterian  ordination  is 
enough  to  disprove  the  claim,  "  that  none  but  prelates  ordained" 
— and  such  an  example  is  given  in  the  text,  "Neglect  not  the  gift 
that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery."  We  join  issue  with  him  on 
this  text,  and  will  go  again,  and  somewhat  more  largely,  into  the 
argument  concerning  it. 

We  stated  in  the  Tract,  that  it  was  allowed  on  all  hands  that 
the  Apostles  ordained.  We  showed  also,  that  Timothy  and 
Titus  had  the  ordaining  power.  So  far,  we  believe,  tiiere  is  no 
question:  this  point  is  clear.     We  argued  likewise,  that  it  is 


190  REMARK8   ON   A   SECOiND   REVIEW   OP 

not  clear  tliat  presbyters  ordained  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  were 
omitted  in  the  directions  for  performing  that  duty  ;  and  therefore 
the  Apostles  and  Timothy  and  Titus  ordained  in  virtue  of  a 
righ.t  which  it  could  not  be  proved  that  presbyters  possessed  — 
in  other  words,  they  ordained  in  virtue  of  iheir  being  a  grade  of 
ministers  superior  to  presbyters,  or  different  from  them,  if  the 
word  'superior'  be  disliked. 

How  did  we  show  that  the  text  quoted  is  not  a  clear  record  of 
a  Presbyterian  ordination?  We  did  it  by  presenting  several 
considerations,  which,  at  the  lowest  estimate,-  make  this  con- 
struction of  the  passage  doubtful ;  and  which,  fairly  weighed, 
cancel  the  whole  claim  thus  built  on  it.  Some  of  these  we  here 
repeat,  and  add  further  arguments  to  the  same  effect. 

1.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  the  passage  refers  to  ordination  of 
any  kind.  A  gift,  %apt(r/ia,  given  by  prophecy,  may  justly  be 
regarded  as  some  extraordinary  spiritual  endowment ;  and  it  is 
so  regarded  by  various  commentators.  Or,  the  "  prophecy"  here 
mentioned,  and  tlte  laying  on  of  hands,  may  be  held  analogous 
to  the  inspired  separation  of  Barnabas  and  Paul,  who  were 
apostles  already,  to  a  particular  sphere  of  apostolic  duty,  which 
was  done  by  "prophets;"  (Acts  xiii;)  and  thus  Timothy  had  his 
"charge"  at  Ephesus  "committed  unto  him  according  to  the 
prophecies  which  went  before  on  him."  Neither  of  these  expo- 
sitions is  strained ;  they  both  are  natural.  The  latter  of  them, 
we  fully  believe,  would  be  assigned  by  a  commentator  whose 
mind  was  not  pre-occupied  with  questions  concerning  ordination, 
and  who  would  make  the  sole  rule  of  his  interpretation  the 
"comparing  Scripture  with  Scripture."  It  is  doubtjul  then, 
reasonably  doubtful,  whether  the  text  refers  to  ordination  at  all. 
And  here  we  make  wir  stand— though  we  carry  onward  the 
argument,  for  the  sake  of  those  who  do  not  agree  with  us. 

2,  Conceding,  for  the  purpose  of  further  investigation,  that 
Timothy's  ordination  is  here  referred  to,  it  is  not  clear  that  the 
word  translated  "presbytery"  means  a  V'dy  of  ordainers — it 
may  mean  '  presbytership,'  the  ministerial  office — with  the  laying 
on  of  hands  for  conferring  the  presbytership — and,  under  that 
construction,  the  passage  does  not  say  whose  hands  were  laid  on 
Timothy  for  this  purpose.  For  this  meaning  of  the  word  we 
adduced  the  authority  of  Jerome.  Ambrose,  Calvin,  and  Grotius.* 
Are  not  such  authorities  sufficient  to  render  doubtful  the  allusion 
of  the  passage  to  ordination  by  presbyters?  And  what  does 
Mr.  Barnes  oppose  to  tliis  argument  and  its  authority? — 1.  That 
it  makes  Timothy  an  elder,  and  so  not  an  apostle ;  which  is  just 
as  conclusive  as  to  say  that  Peter  and  John,  being  called  "elders," 
could  not  have  been  apnsiles  2.  That  the  word  in  question 
means  a  body  of  elders  in  two  other  places ;  so  it  does,  and  yet  may 

*  Poole  says,  in  hig  Synopsis — "  Ita  voceni  banc  accipiunt  Hieron.  Amb.  Grxci 
in  Cone.  Nicen.  can.  2.  Ancvr.  can.  18.  Euseb.  et  Soc."  Surely  the  word  is  not, 
as  Mr  B.  alleges,  "  fixed  in  its  meaning,  in  the  usage  of  the  Church :"  even  if  it 
were,  does  church  usage  control  the  interpretation  of  Scripture? 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY  SCRIPTURB.  191. 

mean  only  the  clerical  office  here.  3.  Thai  Siiicer,  quoting  from 
Theodorel,  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  Ignatius,  gives  the 
word  the  sense  of  a  "college  of  presbyters:"  we  have  not  Suicer 
at  hand,  but  are  very  sure  that  not  one  of  his  quotations  can  refer 
to  ordinations  by  mere  presbyters;  we  are  sure  also,  that  if  he 
quotes  Jerome  and  Ambrose  fully,  he  must  give  the  sense  of 
"presbytership"  to  the  Greek  word.  4.  That  Grotius,  in  recog- 
nising this  latter  sense  of  the  word,  speaks  of  the  presbyters 
laying  on  hands  with  the  pri7iceps  o[  iheirbo^y  ;  and  that  Calvin, 
in  his  commentary,  interprets  the  word  of  "  tlie  college  of  pres- 
byters :"  but  surely  these  replies  leave  the  whole  matter  in  even 
greater  doubt:  Grotius,  though  he  mentions  the  presbyters' 
laying  on  hands,  declines  adducing  the  text  before  us  as  a  proof 
of  their  right  to  do  so,  because  its  meaning  is  uncertain  ;  and 
Calvin  gives  one  meaning  to  irpcalivTtpiov  in  his  Institutes,  (for 
which,  says  Dr.  Miller,  he  deserves  nothing  but  ridicule !)  and 
in  his  Commentary,  a  later  production,  he  prefers  the  other 
meaning — only  prefers  it — for  he  adds,  "Although,  all  things 
considered,  I  confess  a  different  sense  answers  not  badly,  that  it 
should  be  the  name  of  office'''' — now,  what  but  doubly  increased 
[may  we  not  say,  irremediable]  doubt,  can  result  from  the  hesita- 
tion of  these  learned  men  concerning  the  meaning  of  the  word! 
Such  is  the  predicament  in  which  the  highest  Presbyterian 
authority,  to  say  nothing  of  the  other  autliorities  mentioned, 
leaves  the  only  text  which  Mr.  Barnes  adduces  for  his  causCj  the 
"solitary  text,"  the  "  lonely  Scripture  proof!" 

3.  Granting,  yet  further,  that  the  word  should  be  "presbytery," 
and  that  it  means  a  body  of  "elders,''  it  still  is  not  clear  that 
presbyter-bishops,  or  they  only,  were  meant.  Two  of  the 
Apostles  call  themselves  elders— and  thus  the  "presbytery" 
may  have  consisted  of  apostles  only  :  and  Paul  and  Silas,  both 
apostles,  were  at  Lystra,  when  Paul  took  Timothy  "  with  him." 
Again:  Paul  speaks  of  the  gift  which  was  in  Timothy  by  the 
laying  on  oihis  hands  ;  and  the  same  arguments  which  make  the 
other  passage  apply  to  ordination,  will  unavoidably  make  this 
also:  hence,  if  an  ordination  was  meant,  Paul  must  have  officiat- 
ed at  it,  whoever  else  did;  and  tlius  the  act  was  an  apostolical 
one,  and  the  transaction  affords  no  proof  that  presbyters  alone 
can  ordain.  More  doubt  then,  as  we  proceed,  is  gathered  round 
the  Presbyterian  exposition  of  this  passage— and  this  doubt  is 
fairly  and  honestly  adduced ;  it  arises,  not  by  conjuration,  but 
naturally  and  inevitably. 

4.  If  it  be  said  that  the  "elders"  in  this  supposed  ordaining 
"  presbytery"  are  to  be  regarded  as  of  the  specific  kind,  presby- 
ter-bishops or  pastors— that  this  meaning  of  the  word  has  the 
preference  by  the  laws  of  language,— we  reply,  besides  refer- 
ring to  our  Tract,  that  our  Presbyterian  friends  have  cut  them- 
selves off  from  taking  advantage  of  this  argument,  by  putting 
two  kinds  of  elders  into  their  "  presbyteries,"  the  specific  kind, 
and  the  ruling-elder  kind ;  and  so  we  may  unite  the  apostolic 


192  REMARKS   ON   A   SECOND   REVIEW   OF 

sort  and  the  presbyter  sort  in  such  a  body.  Their  Form  of 
Government  says,  "  A  presbytery  consists  of  all  the  ministers, 
and  one  ruling  elder  from  each  congregation,  within  a  certain 
district" — and  at  the  ordination  of  a  pastor,  "the  presbytery" 
is  to  be  "  convened,"  and  is  to  "  lay  on  hands." 

5.  From  this  it  appears  that  the  lay  elders  are  to  join  in  the 
imposition  of  hands.  Not  having  witnessed  a  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation, we  know  not  what  is  the  practice^  but  such  is  the 
authenticated  direction,  and  if  it  be  not  fulfilled,  the  ordiujation 
is  not  by  the  presbytery  of  their  own  defining.  Do  the  lay 
elders,  in  this  act,  unite  in  conferring  the  pastoral  commission  ? 
or  do  they  only  give  consent  to  what  is  done  by  the  ordainers 
proper  ?  The  former  they  cannot  do— not  being  ministers  them- 
selves, they  cannot  make  other  men  ministers.  The  latter  then 
is  the  function  assigned  to  them — they  give  consent;  the  ordi- 
nation is  "by"  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  pastoral 
elders,  (strictly  of  the  "  presiding"  one,)  and  "  with"  the  lay- 
ing on  of  the  hands  of  the  lay  elders.  Here  is  a  distinction 
between  by  and  with,  quite  independent  of  the  "  learned  criti- 
cism" that  has  been  bestowed  on  the  Greek  words;  and  we 
may  avail  ourselves  of  it,  in  discussing  the  theory  of  Timothy's 
being  ordained  by  the  laying  on  of  Paul's  hands,  and  icith  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.  In  doing  so,  we 
take  the  authority  of  the  rules  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
whether  their  practice  conforms  to  them  or  not.  If  they  deny 
our  construction  of  their  rules,  they  make  two  kinds  of  presbyte- 
ries— and  then,  what  results  but  further  doubt  concerning  "  pres- 
bytery "  in  the  passage  before  us  ? — they  define  a  presbytery, 
and  then  depart  from  their  own  definition — which  of  th%  two 
kinds  is  the  scriptural  one  ?  which  has  scriptural  authority  ? 

[Since  writing  the  last  paragraph,  we  have  consulted  Buck's 
Dictionary,  and  find  that  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  the  pastoral 
are  distinguished  from  the  ruling  elders  in  two  particulars — 
they  only  lay  on  hands  in  ordaining  pastors — and  the  presiding 
ofiicer  of  the  presbytery  is  chosen  from  among  them.  We 
have  made  inquiries  also  concerning  the  practice  in  Presbyte- 
rian ordinations  in  this  country,  and  learn  that  the  ruling  elders 
do  not  impose  hands  with  the  pastors — though  the  opinion  is 
not  unsupported,  that  they  ought  to  do  so.  On  this  evidence, 
combined  with  that  of  the  Presbyterian  standards,  we  offer  the 
following  remarks:  1.  If  the  "presbytery"  of  the  standards  is 
the  same  as  that  supposed  to  be  mentioned  in  the  epistle  to 
Timothy,  then  the  lay,  as  well  as  the  pastoral  elders,  ought  to 
lay  on  hands.  Yet  in  fact  they  do  not.  Of  course,  under  this 
construction,  Presbyterian  ordina'aons  are  not  scriptural.  2.  If 
the  "presbytery"  of  the  standards  is  not  that  of  Paul's  epistle, 
then  the  Presbyterians  have  not  a  scriptural  church  govern- 
ment: for  no  other  Christian  presbytery  is  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament.  And  further,  they  make,  under  one  name, 
two  ecclesiastical  bodies ;  the  one  for  governing,  which  is  not 


lEPISCOt*ACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE*  195 

found  in  Scripture,  but  only  in  their  standards  ;  the  other  for 
ordaining,  said  by  them  to  be  in  Scripture;  while  yet  this  say 
is  jin,<aid  by  the  fact  that  not  this,  but  only  the  other  presbytery 
is  found  in  their  standards.  That  their  presbytery  ought  to 
include  ruling  elders,  they  cannot  deny,  since  their  standards  so 
declare:  yet  that  the  scriptural  presbytery  included  ihem  they 
cannot  affirm,  for  their  practice  presumes  it  did  not.-  What— 
witii  Scripture  alleged  on  one  hand,  and  the  General  Assembly 
speaking  clearly  on  the  other — what  is  the  "presbytery?" 
Can  any  thorough  Presbyterian  tell  us,  without  risk  from  one 
or  the  other  of  the  horns  of  this  dilemma?  We  think  not — all  is 
douht  on  that  subject.  3.  If  the  nature  of  things  be  appealed  to, 
and  it  be  said  that  ruling  elders  cannot  belong  to  an  ordaining 
presbytery,  because  they  cannot  confer  an  office  which  them- 
selves do  not  possess,  then  we  ask,  Wliy  are  they  put  into  the 
presbytery  at  all?  Why  is  there  any  other  than  an  ordaining 
presbytery?  WMiy  has  the  General  Assembly  made  no  such 
ordaining  presbytery  as  is  contended  for?  Scripture  having 
sanctioned,  as  interpreted  by  Presbyterians,  a  presbytery  of 
pastors  only,  and  only  for  "laying  on  of  hands,"  where  is  the 
scriptural  authority  for  a  governing  presbytery,  and  for  its 
comprising  ruling  elders?  4.  We  have  further  to  say,  that  if,  on 
Presbyterian  principles,  the  ruling  elders  ought  to  lay  on  hands 
with  the  pastors, — if  this  opinion  has  a  claim  to  be  included  in 
the  argument  before  us,  it  pleads,  of  course,  the  Scripture  men- 
tioned for  its  support ;  and  then,  on  that  theory,  the  actual 
ordinations  of  Presbyterians  are  unscriptural,  as  well  as  con- 
trary to  their  own  Form  of  Government — the  latter  defect 
making  them  uncanonical,  the  General  Assembly  being  the 
judge,  and  the  former  making  them  void. 

The  General  Assembly  declares  that  ordination  is  to  be 
"with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  according 
to  the  apostolic  example;"  it  declares  the  "presbytery,"  the 
only  one  it  defines,,  to  include  ruling  elders;  these,  therefi)re, 
to  conform  to  "  the  apostolic  example,"  ought  to  lay  on  hands, 
hut  they  do  not;  therefore,  by  its  own  showing,  the  ordina- 
tions in  the  communion  of  the  General  Assembly,  are  not 
"  according  to  the  apostolic  example."] 

6.  To  estimate  the  magnitude  of  the  doubtfulness  of  the 
Presbyterian  construction  of  the  text  before  us,  referring,  as 
tiiey  say,  to  the  ordination  of  Timothy,  we  must  look  to  expo- 
sitors of  good  character,  and  see  how  they  interpret  both  that 
passage,  and  whatever  of  Scripture  may  bear  on  the  point  of 
iiis  ordination.  Some,  of  course,  give  the  usual  Presbyterian 
expositions.  But  while  many  others,  of  high  authority,  present 
different  views  of  the  matter,  we  must  hold  the  topic  to  be 
overshadowed  with  too  much  doubt  to  be  availing  in  behalf  of 
the  Non-episcopal  scheme. 

Jerome  and  Ambrose,  Eusebius  and  Socrates,  Nice  and  An- 
cyra— these,  says  Poole,  declare  that  office  was  meant  in  the 
17 


104  REMARKS    ON    A    SECOND    REVIEW   OP 

words,  "laying  on  of  the  hands  to«  irpur^vrtptovy  So  likewise  do 
Lyra  and  others.    (See  Leigh.) 

Grotius  say5,  he  does  not  "dare"  to  adduce  those 'words  for 
the  imposition,  in  ordination,  of  the  hands  of  presbyters. 

Calvin  "halts,"  at  the  least,  "between  the  two  opinions" — 
that  the  words  refer  to  presbyters  —  and  that  they  refer  to 
presbytership. 

T-  Scott,  also,  though  he  thinks  a  body  of  presbyters  is 
meant,  adds,  "  Or  the  ministerial  ojfice  itself  may  be  intended." 

Poole's  Annotations  —  argues  —  Neglect  neither  the  abilities 
nor  the  office  —  "remember  that  they  were  given  thee  by  the 
revelation  of  the  Divine  will,  or  by  the  extraordinary  influence 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  ihe  laying  on  of  hands  of  the  presby- 
tery was  a  declaration  of  it."  In  other  words,  the  whole 
transaction  was  a  "supernatural"  one;  and  the  act  of  the 
presbytery  "declaring"  it,  was  of  course  supernatural  or  in- 
spired. Is  such  a  proceeding  an  ordination  ?  is  it,  by  any  con- 
struction, a  basis  for  an  ordination  of  the  ordinary  kind  ? 

Doddridge  (on  Acts  xvi.  3.)  says,  that  after  circumcising 
Timothy,  at  Lystra,  ^^  Paul  laid  his  hands  upon  him,  and  set 
hig[i  apart  to  the  ministerial  office,  conferring  upon  him  extraor- 
dinary gifts,  (2  Tim.  i.  6,)  which  were  attended  with  prophe- 
cies of  his  eminent  future  usefulness.  (I  Tim.  i.  18;  iv.  14.") 
Whether  Doddridge  speaks  in  another  tone,  in  his  remarks  on 

1  Tim.  iv.  14.  and  2  Tim.  I  6,  we  do  not  inquire.  We  use  his 
authority  for  doubts  only  in  the  case — if  it  amounts  to  contra- 
diction, so  much  more  is  the  Presbyterian  plea  doubtful. 

Macknight  says,  on  the  text  in  dispute — "The  word  ;^apiff/<a 
commonly  denotes  the  spiritual  gifts  conferred  on  believers  in 
the  first  age,  whether  by  an  immediate  illapse  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
or  by  the  imposition  o^  the  Apostles^  hands:"  by  "spiritual  gifts" 
he  means  miraculous  powers;  and  he  ascribes  the  endowment 
to  the  hands  of  "apostles."     He  adds,  "Since  it  appears  from 

2  Tim.  i.  6,  that  the  Apostle  by  the  imposition  of  his  own  hands 
conferred  on  Timothy  the  spiritual  gift  here  mentioned,  we  must 
suppose  that  the  eldership  at  Lystra  laid  their  hands  on  him 
only  to  show  their  concurrence  with  the  Apostle  in  setting 
Timothy  apart  to  the  ministry  by  prayer;  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  prophets  at  Antioch,  by  the  command  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
separated  Paul  and  Barnabas  by  prayer  to  the  work  to  which 
they  were  appointed."  Dr.  Macknight,  it  seems,  does  not  speak 
so  slightingly  of  "concurrence"  as  the  reviewer  does — "for  con- 
currence, for  form,  for  nothing  !"  A  very  short  argument — but 
a  very  brittle  one  ! 

Adam  Clarke,  who  thinks  that  both  gifts  and  office  are  referred 
to  in  the  passage  before  us,  says  there  were  two  impositions  of 
hands  on  Timothy,  though  on  the  same  occasion  ;  that  by  Paul, 
and  that  by  the  "presbytery."  On  this  construction,  a  presby- 
tery ought  not  to  lay  on  haeds,  unless  there  be  an  apostle  present 
%o  do  the  same  act,  either  before  or  after  theirs  is  performed. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY  SCRIPTDRE.  196^ 

Some  Presbyterians,  as  Dr.  Campbell  and  Dr.  Wilson,  reject 
the  class  of  ruling-elders,  and  deem  a  "-presbytery"  to  be 
formed  without  thera.  Others,  as  Calvin  and  Dr.  Miller,  are 
strenuous  advocates  for  that  office,  and  make  them  an  integral 
part  of  the  "presbvtery ;"  as  does  also  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  this  country.  Now,  who  can  say,  in  such  a  disagreement  of 
great  divmes — who  can  say,  with  reasonable  certainty,  or  with 
sufficient  probability,  how,  on  Non-episcopal  principles,  the 
"presbytery"  of  the  text  before  U3  must  have  been  constituted? 

Again:  Some  writers,  our  Rev.  opponent  for  example,  say 
that  Paul  belonged  to  this  "presbytery,"  or  look  part  with  them 
in  the  ordination.  Others,  as  Matthew  Henry,  say  that  the 
"  presbyter)'-"  alone  ordained,  and  that  Paul  did  not  belong  to  it, 
but  gave  only  an  extraordinary  spiritual  gift  by  the  imposition  of 
liis  hands.  What  are  we  to  make  of  a  "presbytery"  of  which 
such  contradictory  notions  are  entertained? 

Other  Presbyterian  writers,  as  the  late  Dr.  Wilson,  are  of 
opinion  that  in  the  very  outset  of  the  Church,  there  were  no 
ordained  ministers,  but  only  apostles,  evang-elists,  prophets,  &c., 
endowed  with  extraordinary  gifts.  In  conformity  with  this 
theory,  Dr.  Wilson  doubts  Vf'bether  the  verse  before  us  alludes 
to  ordination,  (p.  273.) 

Add  to  these  Presbyterian  or  Non-episcopal  sources  of  doubt 
concerning  the  meaning  of  this  word  and  the  passage  containing 
it — all  our  modern  quotations  but  one  are  from  that  side  of  the 
question — add  to  them  the  many  Episcopal  writers  who  regard 
the  "presbytery"  as  having  consisted  of  apostles,  of  bishops 
proper,  or  of  elders  with  one  or  more  apostles — or,  wno  hold 
that  Paul  alone  ordained,  while  the  elders  merely  gave  consent 
— or,  who  do  not  allow  that  this  laying  on  of  hands  was  for 
ordination — add  Ignatius,  who  says,  (Phil.  5,)  "fleeing  to  the 
Apostles  as  to  the  'presbytery  of  the  Church,"  showing  that  the 
word  in  dispute  may  be  applied  to  a  body  of  apostles  only — add 
Chrysostom,  who  says,  on  the  passage,  "  by  eldership  (pres- 
bytery) he  means  not  presbyters,  but  bfshops,  for  presbyters  did 
not  ordain  bishops" — add  Theodoret,  who  says  that  the  minis- 
ters who  with  Paul  consecrated  Timothy  were  "  those  who  were 
vouchsafed  the  favor  to  be  apostles,"  or  the  gift  of  the  apostleship 
— add,  if  we  may  go  to  later  fathers,  (Eenmenius  and  Theophy- 
lact,  who  say,  "presbytery,  that  is  bishops"* — add  all  these 
further  sources  of  doubt,  and  what  but  douht  can  be  made  of  the 
*' solitary  text !"  (See  further  the  note  below .f) 

♦  The  three  last  quotations  are  taken  from  Hammond  on  Acts  xi.  30. 

t  We  add,  in  full,  the  remarks  on  Upca^urtpiov  from  the  Critica  Sacra  of  Sir 
Edward  Leigh  :  He  was,  says  Lempriere,  a  member  of  the  Long  Parliament,  and 
of  the  Assembly  of  Divines,  and  also  a  parjiamentary  general :"  he  dedicates  his 
work  to  the  Westmnster  Assembly  of  Divines.  He  tJms  writes  on  tlie  word, — 
"Upt&^VTt^iQv,  Seniorum  ordo,  Preshyterium.  It  signifieth  a  company  of  elders. 
PresbyteTtum  in  Latin  is  used  bv  Cypri<m,  lib.  3.  epist.  11.  and  i.  2.  epist.  8  and  10, 
for  a  consistory  of  eldeis.  1  Tim.  iv.  14.  [Vide  Beza.]  It  doth  signify  (saitlt; 
one)  not  only  a  company  of  presbyters,  but  also  the  office  and  function  of  a  presbyte*. 


196  REMARKS   ON   A   SECOND   REVIEW   OF 

7.  Let  the  only  scriptural  illustrations  of  the  word  "presby- 
tery'- be  taken  inio  consideration.  It  occurs  three  times  in  the 
New  Testament ;  and  in  both  the  cases  besides  the  one  before  us, 
it  is  applied  to  the  Jewish  elders  or  rulers — "  Tlie  presbytery  of 
the  people,  and  the  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes  came  together," 
(Luke  xxii.  66;)  "  The  high  priest  doth  bear  me  witness,  and  all 
the  presbytery."  (Acts  xxii.  5.)  The  Jewish  presbytery  was 
"a  body  distinguished  from  the  priests,"  says  Dr.  Miller  :  laymen 
belonged  to  it — perhaps  it  was  made  up  of  laymen.  What  then 
was  llie  Christian  presbytery  mentioned  by  Paul  ?  was  it  clerical, 
or  lay,  or  a  mixture?  Scripture  decides  not.  If  the  Jewish 
presbytery  was  "  distinguished  from  the  priesthood,"  is  it  not  a 
fair  inference,  thai  the  Christian  presbytery  was  'distinguished 
from  the  ministry?'  and  then,  if  the  passage  be  relied  on  for  the 
authority  to  ordain,  the  Independents  triumph  over  the  Presby- 
terians. If  the  word  "presbyter."  as  occurring  in  Scripture, 
be  brought  to  the  aid  of  the  word  "  presbytery."  then  a  seat  in 
that  body  is  given  to  apostles,  to  presbyter-bishops,  to  deacons 
probably,  and  some  say  to  ruling  elders ;  while  yet  Scripture 
does  not  declare  whether  only  one  or  more,  or  all  tijese  kinds  of 
presbyters,  were  necessary  to  constitute  the  body — it  leaves  the 


Hieronymiia,  Ambrosius,  Priraasius,  Haimo,  Lj'ranus  dicunt,  Presbyterium  bic  est 
dignitas  vel  officiumFreshy tern:  qaibus  et  Calvinus  adstipulatur.  Chrysostomus, 
et  Tlieodoretus,  et  qui  horum  vestigiis  institerunt,  CEcumenias  ac  Theophylactus, 
per  Presbyteriiim  non  nisi  episcopoa  [none  but  bishops]  inteliigunt.  Itiique  si  demos 
(inquit  Scultetus  in  locum)  nptalivrepiov  hie  coetum  seniorum  significare,  erunt 
seniores  illi,  Apostdi,  Evangclist(B,  Propheta;,  et  Ixxii.  discipuH,  quos  Scriptarap 
docentde  Presbytcriis  fuisse  in  prima  ecclesia  ;  non  laid  seniores,  quorum  scriptura 
nusquam  nieminit,  el  qui  l>oc  ipso  loco  a  preebyierio.  velnt  ex  profeeao,  excluduntur. 
Pre^Vterium  enim  hoc  iniuius  ministris  ordinandis  imposuit  Nulli  autem  laicorum 
eeniorum  manus  ministris  imposuerunl:  Hoc  postremo  habendum;  solos  pastores 
manus  imposuisse  ministris.  Calvinus,  li.  4.  Instit.  ca.  3.  So  Jerome  and  Anselm. 
expound  Presbyterium  by  Presbyteratits,  or  Episcopatus,  that  is,  the,  office  of  a 
priest  or  bishop  :  and  Lyra,Presbyterium  est  dignitas  vel  officium  presbyteri.  Yea, 
their  own  Rhemists  confess  so  much,  in  that  they  translate  the  word  presbyteriuir. 
in  this  place,  priesthood,  which  doth  not  signify  a  company  of  priests,  but  the  office 
and  order  of  a  priest.  Yet  others  seem  to  be  of  a  contrary  opinion." — Here>  surely, 
is  an  unexceptionable  witness  ;  he  was  "learned,"  he  waa  "  a  violent  Presbyterian," 
and  both  pohtically  and  ecclesiastically  connected  with  the  interests  of  that  denomi- 
nation. What  says  he  of  the  doubtful  word  7  it  means  'seniorum  ordo,'  the  degree 
or  order  of  elders,  as  well  as  a  'company'  of  them  ;  and  he  gives  as  full  authority, 
at  least,  for  the  former  sense,  as  for  the  Jiatter.  It  means  also  the  office  of  a  bishop, 
and  a  body  of  bishops  ;  good  authorities  being  adduced  for  these  significations  also. 
What,  now,  must  we  think  of  Dr.  Miller,  when  he  says  that  Calvin,  for  interpreting 
the  word  of  office,  "  deserves  notliing  but  ridicule  1"  (p.  58.  \st  edit.)  What  shall 
we  think  of  Mr.  Barnes,  when  he  says,  "  The  woad  is  ^xed  in  its  meaijing,  in 
the  usage  of  the  Church  1"  If  ever  there  was  a  word  pre  eminently  not  fixed  in  ita 
meaning,  irp£a(3vT£Diov  is  such  a  word.  Nay,  we  may  affirm  that  its  meaning 
cannot  now  be  fixed — for  the  authority  for  each  of  the  several  meanings  presented 
in  this  extract,  is  too  good  to  be  set  aside,  and  neither  of  them  can  be  preferred, 
without  the  shedding  of  new  light  on  the  subject.  The  Presbyterian  construction 
has  only  the  merpst  chance  of  being  the  true  one.  For  ourselves,  we  prefer  the 
analogy  of  the  "  transaction  "  in  this  passage  with  that  in  Acts  xiii. :  this  scriptural 
analogy  appears  to  us  stronger  than  all  the  argunoients  adduced  for  the  other  inte^^ 
pretations. 


EPISCOPACT  TESTED   BY  SCRIPTURE.  IW 

text,  tlie  "lonely"  text,  to  the  conflicting  claims  of  Episcopjp- 
lians,  Presbyterians,  and  the  advocates  of  lay  ordination. 

Such,  upon  all  these  considerations,  is  the  hopeless  predica- 
ment of  the  passage  before  us. 

Yet  on  such  a  text  Mr.  Barnes  rests  his  argument  for  the 
scriptural  authority  of  Presbyterian  ordination;  on  this  text 
alone,  for  he  does  not  support  it,  on  the  point  of  ordination,  by 
any  other  scriptures.  Nay,  we  see  not  that  he  has  any  scrip- 
tures to  support  it  with  ;  for,  in  his  first  Review,  he  acknowledges 
that  "the  transaction  at  Antioch  was  not  a  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion ;"  and  if  he  go  to  the  cases  of  Matthias,  the  seven  deacons, 
and  the  "  eMers  in  every  church,"  he  will  find  them  all  the  work 
of  apostles,  not  of  elders.  In  this  one  passage  then,  "the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,"  we  have  not  merely  the 
only  passage  he  offers,  but  the  only  one  he  can  offer.  Will  he 
tell  us  then  what  rrpecfivTipiov  in  this  passage  means?  will  he  tell 
us,  on  such  principles  and  on  such  authority  as  will  scatter 
reasonable  doubt,  and  compel  the  acquiescence  of  all  candid  and 
honest  minds  ?  No,  he  cannot.  The  grounds  of  uncertainty,  as 
to  its  meaning,  are  too  numerous,  too  rife  even  in  his  own 
denomination,  to  admit  of  a  concentration  of  opinion  on  the 
Presbyterian  sense,  or  indeed  on  any  one  sense,  of  that  Greek 
word.  We  are  right  therefore,  in  deeming  it  to  have  referred 
to  an  inspired  transaction,  which  affords  no  rule  of  conduct  to. 
uninspired  agents. 

Compare  with  these  "shadows,  clouds,  and  darkness,"  the 
Episcopal  argument.  That  the  Apostles  ordained,  all  agree. 
That  Timothy  and  Titus  had  the  power  to  ordain,  all  agree; 
That  the  two  latter  had  this  power  individually  is  clear,  if  proof 
to  the  contrary  be  not  shown,  for  the  epistles  are  directed  to 
them  individually.  What  is  the  proof  to  the  contrary  ?  Nothing 
positive  any  where  —  nothing  by  inference  in  the  epistle  to 
Titus— and  in  those  to  Timothy,  nothing  but  the  very  passage 
•we  have  had  before  us,  the  meaning  of  which  even  Presbyterians 
cannot  decide,  and  which  of  course  affords  no  availing  inference 
whatever.  Timothy  and  Titus  then  had  the  ordaining  power 
individually.  Timothy  was  to  have  it  "till  the  appearing  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  the  end  of  the  world ;  that  is,  such  minis- 
ters as  Timothy  were  to  be  perpetuated  while  the  earthly  Church 
should  endure — what  he  had  received  of  Paul  W'as  to  be  "com- 
mitted to  faithful  men"  successively.  Is  there  any  flaw  in  this 
chain  of  proofs  ?  do  any  reasonable  doubts  obscure  this  argument 
from  Scripture?  No  :  we  aver  it  to  be  as  clear  as  any  matter  of 
doctrine  or  discipline  drawn  from  that  holy  volume.  This  is 
enough  for  an  inductive  proof  of  Episcopal  ordination. 

Add  to  it  the  total  want  of  proof  of  Presbyterian  ordination. 
Where  shall  any  proof  of  it  be  found?  In  the  "transaction  at 
Antioch  ?"  Mr.  Barnes  gives  it  up ;  the  late  Dr.  Wilson  gave  it 
up  ;  Dr.  Miller,  if  we  understand  his  late  Tract,  (p.  12,  54,)  gives 
il  up ;  the  Review  of  our  Tract  in  the  Biblical  Repertory  is. 
1.7.* 


198  REMARKS   ON    A   SECOND  REVIEW    OF 

silent  concerning  the  paragraphs  on  that  "transaction"  which 
appeared  to  Mr.  Barnes  so  '-conclusive."  Will  proof  be  sought 
in  the  passage  "  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery?"  it 
cannot  be  done,  till  it  be  determined  what  the  passage  means. 
Will  it  be  looked  for  in  the  fact  that  a  "plurality"  (we  take  this 
word  from  Dr.  Miller)  ordained?  the  answer  is,  that  in  every 
recorded  case  of  that  sort,  the  ordainers  were  apostles,  not  mere 
presbyters.*  This  is  all  the  scriptural  proof,  we  believe,  that 
Non-episcopalians  claim  for  their  ordinations:  and  what  does  it 
amount  to?  precisely  nothing — their  proof  is  no  proof. 

The  result  is,  that  Episcopal  ordination  has  the  c/ear  authority 
of  Scripture^  and  that  Presbyterian  ordination  has  no  scriptural 
authority  whatever. 

Because  our  Rev.  reviewer  finds  no  mention  of  persons  in  the 
apostolical  or  Episcopal  grade  of  the  ministry,  in  the  epistles  to 
the  Philippians  and  the  Thessalonians,  he  concludes  that  those 
churches,  or  "groups"  of  churches,  were  organized  without 
them,  under  presbyter-bisiiops  only.  He  might  as  well  argue, 
that,  because  no  ministers  of  any  kind  (except  false  teachers) 
are  mentioned  in  the  first  epistle  of  John,  the  Christians  for 
whom  it  was  intended  had  none.  Besides,  there  are  those 
who  think  the  Philippians  had  an  apostle,  Epaphroditus— and 
who  include  such  an  officer  among  those  in  the  Church  at 
Thessalonica  who  were  "over  them  in  the  Lord."  But  we  may 
grant  the  reviewer  all  he  asks,  and  he  will  yet  gain  nothing.  It 
is  not  inconsistent  with  the  Episcopal  scheme  that  new  churches, 
or  districts  of  churches,  be  for  awhile  without  bishops;  all  our 
churches  in  this  country  were  without  them  till  after  the  Revolu- 
tion, their  connexion  with  the  bishop  of  London  being  little 
more  than  nominal,  and  without  ecclesiastical  authorization ; 
and  in  several  of  our  new  States  and  Territories  now,  there  are 
churches  without  bishops,  not  being-numerous  enough,  as  yet, 
to  elect  canonically  such  officers.  Such  districts  have  only,  like 
the  "group"  of  churches  in  or  near  Philippi,  according  to  the 
reviewer,  presbyter-bishops  and  deacons.  They  wilf  -obtain 
each  an  apostle-bishop  in  due  season,  however,  as  Philippi 
unquestionably  did,  if  without  one  at  the  time  the  epistle  was 
written. 

And  as  to  the  alleged  incongruity  of  elders,  the  "  presbytery," 
"  designating  the  bishop  of  Ephesus  to  his  field  of  labor,"  what 
force  is  there  in  the  objection?  Do  not  Presbyterian  laity  desig- 
nate, in  the  first  instance,  to  his  field  of  labor,  a  pastor  elect,  or 
a  pastor  ordained  coming  from  some  other  parish  or  situation? 
Do  not  our  "elders  and  brethren,"  in  convention,  do  the  same 
for  a  bishop  elect?  Nay,  our  "  elders  and  brethren"  in  Illinois 
have  "  appointed,"  have  "  designated  to  his  field  of  labor,"  a 


*  If  these  parts  of  Scripture  are  to  be  employed  against  us,  it  should  be  to  the 
point  that  a  "  plurality  "  of  bishops  ought  to  act  in  aU  ordinations.  Our  reply  would 
then  be,  tliat  Timotliy  and  Titus,  individually,  had  the  ordaining  power 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCKIPTDRE.  199 

bishop  consecrated— Bishop  Chase.  And  in  England,  where 
translations  are  allowed,  the  "brethren  and  elders,"  the  king 
and  the  dean  and  chapter,  are  continually  thus  "designating" 
consecrated  bishops  to  fields  in  which  they  did  not  labor  before. 

We  have  now  answered  all  that  we  deem  material  in  the 
argument  of  our  estimable  opponent.  And  we  will  not  deem 
him  less  estimable  for  an  inadvertence  into  which  he  has  fallen 
at  the  close  of  his  work.  When  we  quoted  an  encomium  on 
our  Church  from  his  first  review,  we  omitted  his  kind  hope 
that  she  would  be  "  the  warm  friend  of  revivals,  and  would  con- 
secrate her  wealth  and  power  to  the  work  of  a  perpetual  aggres- 
sion on  the  territories  of  sin  and  death."  The  reviewer  inti- 
mates that  this  omission  of  ours  "evinced  a  degree  of  coldness 
toward  the  great  work  of  converting  the  world,"  and  that  we  were 
"  alarmed  at  the  word  revivals."  Now,  we  submit  to  the  better 
judgment  of  our  Rev.  friend,  whether  he  has  not  transcended 
his  fair  rights — whether  our  omission  only  of  certain  topics  is 
justly  construed  into  an  aversion  to  them — whether  a  contro- 
vertist  has  the  privilege  of  calling  out  his  opponent  on  subjects 
foreign  to  the  debate,  and  of  which  he  says  nothing — in  short, 
whether  this  is  not  an  "  extraneous  consideration,"  and  one 
peculiarly  improper,  as  having  an  ad  captandiim  appearance, 
in  a  discussion  on  the  scriptural  arguments  concerning  Episco- 
pacy ?  Our  opinions  on  the  subject  of  "  converting  the  world  " 
have  been  published,  and  pretty  widely  circulated.  And  when 
the  word  "  revivals "  shall  be  authoritatively  defined,  we  will 
say  whether  we  are  friendly  to  them  or  not.  At  present,  the 
term  includes  proceedings  of  the  most  unruly  and  fanatical 
sort,  as  well  as  the  periods  of  a  gentler  movement  in  piety, 
which  never,  we  believe,  had  this  name  till  of  late  years.  And 
until  the  former  are  wholly  discarded  from  the  current  defini- 
tion, we  cannot  sanction  the  loord  "revivals."  W^e  are  sure 
our  Rev.  friend  will  see  that  he  has  obliged  us  to  make  a  gra- 
tuitous explanation. 

But  we  consign  this  mistake  to  oblivion,  and  assure  him  of 
oiir  high  estimate  of  his  piety,  talents,  and  honorable  principles. 
That  his  reviews  have  not  been  more  successful,  is  owing  to 
the  infelicity  of  the  cause  they  would  support — infelicity,  we 
say,  for  we  believe  that  in  the  controversies  on  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  ministry,  Episcopalians  have  invariably  been  the 
gainers. 

H.  U.  O. 

P.  S. — We  find  that  the  Biblical  Repertory  joins  Mr.  Barnes 
in  the  opinion  that  Timothy  was  not  at  Philippi  at  the  time  of 
the  persecution.  Beyond  these  two  writers,  we  know  of  none 
who  even  intimate  such  a  view  of  the  case. 

H.  U.  O. 


From  tlie  Biblical  Repertory. 

REVIEW. 


Episcopacy  Testrd  by  Scrtpturb.  By  the  Right  Rev.  Henry  tl.Onder- 
donk,  D.  D..  Assistant  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania.     ISmo.  pp.  46.     1831. 

We  think  some  apology  to  our  readers  will  be  considered  as 
proper,  not  for  being  so  tardy  in  our  notice  of  this  pamphlet, 
but  for  noticing  it  at  all.  It  is  not  customary,  we  suppose,  to 
review  "Tracts;"  not  merely  because  of  their  number,  and  their 
diminutive  and  fugitive  character;  but  also  because,  when  they 
are  decisively  sectarian  in  their  nature,  they  are  regarded  as 
meant  for  circulation  only  among  the  members  of  the  particular 
sect  for  whose  benefit  they  are  intended.  The  history  of  this 
Tract,  however,  is  somewhat  peculiar.  It  was  first  published  as 
an  article  in  a  periodical  entitled,  the  "  Protestant  Episcopalian," 
without  a  name.  Soon  afterward  a  large  number  of  extra 
copies  were  stricken  off  from  the  press  of  that  work,  and  exten- 
sively circulated;  but  still  without  a  name.  In  this  form,  copy 
after  copy  was  sent  to  us  by  mail,  which  convinced  us  that 
something  more  was  intended  than  to  inform  and  satisfy  Epis- 
copalians. In  a  short  time  it  came  forth  from  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Press  in  New-York,  as  a  formal  tract,  with  the  name 
of  the  writer;  and  was  soon  followed  by  intimations  from 
various  quarters,  that  it  was  deemed  conclusively  to  establish 
the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy ;  nay,  that  it  v/as  unanswerable. 
The  whole  Presbyterian  Church,  in  no  very  indirect  form,  was 
challenged  to  reply.  At  length  something  like  a  tone  of  exult- 
ing sarcasm  was  publicly  indulged.  An  answer  was  again  and 
again  called  for,  accompanied  with  more  than  insinuations  that 
the  silence  of  Presbyterians  in  regard  to  this  Tract,  must  be 
interpreted  as  a  virtual  acknowledgment  that  they  felt  them- 
selves refuted  and  overcome. 

On  the  undignified  and  offensive  aspect  of  this  corrduct,  we 
do  not  think  proper  to  multiply  remarks.  Such  puerile  exulta- 
tion is  the  language  of  weakness,  not  of  strength.  It  is  very 
evident  that  those  who  indulged  it  were  acquainted  with  only 
one  side  of  the  controversy.  We  are  far,  however,  from  ascrib- 
ing this  conduct  to  Bishop  Onderdonk  himself.  We  have  no 
doubt  he  would  disdain  it. 

The  simple  truth  is,  that  we  never  gave  this  Tract  even  a 
cursory  perusal,  until  within  the  last  twenty-four  hours.  Al- 
though copy  after  copy  was  poured  upon  us  by  the  mail,  in  all 
the  stages  of  its  publication ;  yet,  after  glancing  at  a  pagp  here 

C  200  ) 


REVIEW — EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY  SCRIPTORE.  201 

and  there,  to  the  amount  of  a  fourth,  or,  at  most,  a  third  part  of 
its  contents,  and  finding  not  a  thought  or  an  illustration  with 
which  we  had  not  been  made  familiar  by  other  writers,  we 
closed  the  pamphlet  under  the  deliberate  impression  that  it  did 
not  call  for  any  public  notice.  It  never  occurred  to  us  as  possible 
that  any  well-informed  Presbyterian  or  Episcopalian  could  con- 
sider this  manual  as  placing  the  claims  of  prelacy  on  any  oiher 
or  firmer  gr<-^uud  than  that  on  which  it  was  regarded  as  resting 
before.  And,  as  we  had  repeatedly  said  in  preceding  numbers 
of  our  work,  what  we  thought  sufficient  to  discredit  these  claims, 
with  all  impartial  readers,  we  felt  no  disposition  to  renew  a 
controversy  on  which  we  thought  enough  had  been  wriiien  ; 
especially  when  so  many  other  subjects  more  nearly  connected 
with  the  best  interests  of  society,  and  the  salvation  of  the  soul, 
were  urgently  pressed  upon  our  attention,  and  more  than  suffi- 
cient to  fill  our  pages. 

These,  most  candidly,  are  our  reasons  for  not  having  before 
taken  any  public  notice  of  this  manual.  And  our  general  esti- 
mate of  its  character  would  dispose  us  still  to  be  silent.  But  as 
the  voice  of  exultation  over  its  su[)posed  unanswerable  charac- 
ter seems  to  be,  in  the  Episcopal  camp,  waxing  louder  and 
louder;  and  as  it  is  possible  that  some  of  our  less-informed 
friends  may  misapprehend  the  reason  of  our  silence,  we  liave 
resolved  to  offer  a  few  cursory  remarks  on  the  boasted  produc- 
tion before  us. 

And  in  the  outset,  we  think  proper  to  say,  that,  although  the 
style  of  this  Tract  is,  in  general,  circuitous,' heavy  and  feeble  ; — 
and  although  a  single  thought  is  not  recognised  in  the  whole, 
which  has  not  been,  to  say  the  least,  quite  as  clearly  and  forci- 
bly presented  by  preceding  writers;  yet  it  possesses  so  ne 
characteristics  which  are  worthy  of  high  commendation.  The 
author  has  avoided  all  indecorum  and  severity  of  remark.  He 
writes  like  a  scholar  and  a  gentleman.  He  has  resorted  to  no 
unbecoming  language,  or  disingenuous  arts.  Every  thing  be- 
speaks a  writer  at  home  in  his  subject;  qualified  to  arrange  with 
some  degree  of  skill  the  old  and  common-place  matter  which  he 
presents;  and  disposed  to  maintain  his  cause  by  fair  reasoning, 
as  he  understands  it,  rather  than  by  denunciation  or  acrimony. 
In  these  respects  the  manual  before  us  is  worthy  of  much 
praise.  If  all  writers  in  favor  of  prelacy  had  maintained  an 
equally  inoflTensive  and  respectful  manner,  it  would  have  formed 
a  much  less  revolting  page  than  it  does,  in  the  history  of  eccle- 
eiastical  polemics. 

If  there  be  a  feature  in  this  Tract  which  partakes  in  any 
measure  of  novelty,  it  is  that  the  author  should  be  willing  to 
bring  Episcopacy  to  the  "  test  of  Scriptdre."  His  predeces- 
sors have  seldom  ventured  to  risk  this.  It  has  generally  been 
their  pt)licy  to  pass  in  a  very  cursory  manner  over  the  testimony 
drawn  from  the  inspired  writings,  and  to  place  their  chief  reli- 
ftnce  on  that  of  the  "  fathers."  And  even  when  the  question 
18 


202  REVIETC — EPTSCOPACT 

ivas  asked,  "What  saith  the  Scripture?"  it  wa^  seldom  the 
inspired  oracle  alojie  that  was  consulted;  but  Scripture  inter- 
preted, commented  upon,  and  modified  by  human  authority. 
We  are  glad  to  see  the  appeal  made,  and  for  once,  professedly 
confined  to  the  Word  of  God.  When  fairly  brought  to  this  test, 
we  cannot  doubt  the  issue  among  all  impartial  judges.  We  are 
not  merely  willing,  then,  but  insist  that  the  whole  subject  shall 
be  brought  and  decided  before  this  tribunal  The  Bible  con- 
tains the  religion  of  Protestants.  It  is  the  onlp  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.  By  this  great  rule  we  must  try  the  fathers 
themselves.  And  whatever,  in  their  writings,  is  not  supported 
by  the  Bible,  we  are  bound  to  reject  without  hesitation. 

Before  Bishop  Onderdonk  proceeds  to  array  in  form  the 
testimony  of  Scripture  in  favor  of  Episcopacy,  he  attempts  to 
dispose  of  what  he  calls  certain  "  extraneous  questions  an-d 
difficulties,  and  to  show  either  their  fallacy  or  irrelevancy."  We 
are  quite  willmg  that  these  "questions  and  difficulties"  should 
be,  for  the  present,  put  out  of  view.  Not  because  we  tliink 
them  really  either  irrelevant  or  unimportant;  but  because  we 
do  not  think  them  essential;  and  because  we  are  disposed  to 
disembarrass  the  main  question  as  much  as  possible,  and  to 
keep  the  mind  of  every  reader  firmly  fixed  on  the  position  of 
the  writer  before  us,  that  Episcopacy  is  taught  in  the  Bible. 
To  this  position,  th(irefore,  let  us  address  ©urselves  with  all 
candor  and  impartiality. 

Bishop  Onderdonk,  then,  maintains,  that  the  Gospel  ministry 
was,  by  Divine  authority,  "established  in  three  orders,  called, 
ever  since  the  apostolic  age,  bishops,  presbpiers  or  elders,  and 
deacons ;  of  which  the  highest  only  —  that  is,  bishops  —  has-  a- 
right  to  ordain  and  confirm,"  Sen.  In  opposition  to  this  claim, 
Presbyterians  maintain,  that,  by  Divine  authority,  the  Gospel 
ministry  was  established  in  a  single  order;  that  all  ministers  in 
the  apostolic  Church,  who  were  authorized  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel, and  administer  the  Christian  sacraments,  were  empowered 
to  perform  the  highest  functions  of  the  sacred  office.  We  differ,, 
then,  in  regard  to  the  Cliristian  ministry,  in  two  respects,  from 
our  Episcopal  brethren.  In  ihejirst  place,  we  confidently  deny 
that  tliere  is  the  least  foundatioii  in  Scripture  for  considering 
deacons  as  an  order  of  Gospel  ministers  at  all.  And,  in  the 
second  place,  we  as  confidently  assert  that  there  is  no  authority 
whatever  in  the  Word  of  Goo  for  any  "order"  of  ministers 
above  that  of  ordinary  pastors. 

I.  On  the^rs^  of  these  points  it  is  not  our  intention  to  dwell 
long.  Not  merely  because  Bishop  Onderdonk  says  little  about 
it;  but  also  because  if  the  second  point,  viz.  that  which  relates 
to  the  claim  of  the  bishop,  or  alleged  highest  order,  cannot  be 
sustained — as  we  are  very  sure  it  cannot — the  claim  of  the  dea- 
€071  to  a  share  in  the  evangelical  ministry,  as  one  of  "  three 
orders,"  will  fall  of  course.  We  say,  then,  that  the  alleged  claim 
of  the  deacon,  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  to  a  place  as  one  of  the 


TESTED   BY  3CRlPTtRE.  v  208 

^'  orders  of  clergy  " — has  no  foundation  whatever  in  the  Word  of 
God.  To  establish  this,  nothing  more  is  necessary  than  to 
glance  at  the  inspired  record,  in  Acts  vi.  1-7,  where  the  original 
appointment,  and  the  duties  of  deacons,  are  explicitly  and  plainly 
staled.  "In  those  days,  when  the  number  of  the  disciples  was 
•multiplied,  ther«  arose  a  murmuring  of  the  Grecians  against  the 
Hebrews,  -because  their  widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily 
ministrations.  Then  the  twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  dis- 
ciples unio  them,  and  said,  '  It  is  not  meet  that  we  should  leave 
the  Word -of  God,  and  serve  tables.  "Wherefore,  brethren,  look 
ye  oKt  seven  men  of  lK)nest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
wisdom,   yhom  we  may  appoint  over  this  business.     But  we 

WILL  GIVE  OORSELVES  CONTINUALLY  TO  PRAYER.  AND  TO  THE  MINIS- 
TRY OF  THE  WORD.'  A«d  the  saying  pleased  the  whole  multi- 
tude ;  and  they  chose  Stephen,  a  man  full  of  faith  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  Philip,  and  Prochorus,  and  Nicanor,  and 
Tirnon,  and  Parmenas,  and  Nicolas,  a  proselyte  of  Antioch; 
whom  they  set  before  th-e  Apostles  ;  and  when  they  had  prayed, 
they  laid  their  hands  on  them." 

This  is  th-e  ^rs^  and  the  only  account  in  the  whole  New  Tes- 
tament of  the  original  appointment  of  deacons,  and  the  only 
statement  which  we  find  of  tlieir  appropriate  duties.  And  we 
appeal  to  every  candid  reader  whether  it  affords  the  least  coun- 
tenance to  the  idea  that  the  deaconship  was  then  an  office 
which  had  any  thing  to  do  with  preaching  and  baptizing ;  in 
other  words,  whether  it  was  an  office  at  all  devoted  to  the  spi- 
ritual duties  of  the  sanctuary?  Really,  if  such  an  idea  had  not 
been  actually  advanced,  it  would  never  have  occurred  to  us  as 
possible  that  it  should  enter  the  mind  of  any  thinking  man. 
Indeed,  if  the  whole  passage  had  been  constructed  upon  the 
distinct  plan  of  precluding  the  possibility  of  such  an  interpreta- 
tion, it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  such  a  design  could  have 
been  more  clearly  manifest.  The  Apostles  say,  "  It  is  not  meet 
that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  God — (that  is,  evidently, — 
LEAVE  preaching) — aucl  SERVE  TABLES;  whcrcforc,  look  ye  out 
seven  men,  «Scc,,  whom  we  may  appoint  over  this  business; 
(that  is,  this  business  of  serving  tables,)  and  we  will  give  our- 
selves to  prayer,  and  to  the  ministry  of  the  word^  Can  any 
man  who  is  not  blindly  wedded  to  a  system,  consider  this  pas- 
sage as  importing  that  deacons  were  appointed  to  be  preachers 
of  the  word?  Nay,  is  it  not  expressly  slated  that  the  Apostles 
considered  the  duties  of  this  office  as  of  such  a  nature,  that 
their  undertaking  to  fulfil  them  would  compel  them  to  leave 
PREACHING,  and  devote  themselves  to  the  care  of  money  tables? 

It  militates  nothing  against  this  plain  statement  of  the  inspired 
historian,  that  he  represents  Stephen,  one  of  these  deacons,  as 
soon  after  his  appointment,  defending  himself  with  great  power 
before  the  Jewish  council ;  and  Philip,  another  of  them,  em- 
ployed in  a  year  or  two  after  his  ordination  to  the  deaconship, 
jfjreaching  and  baptizing  in  Samaria.    With  respect  to  Stephen, 


204  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

it  i^5  not  said,  that  he  eiilier  preached  or  baptized.  He  simply 
replied  to  those  wiio  "disputed"  with  him,  and  defended  him- 
self before  the  council  by  which  he  was  arraigned.  In  all 
this,  there  was  evidently  nothing  which  any  nvan  might  not  do, 
in  any  age  of  the  Church,  without  infringing  ecclesiastical  order. 
And  as  to  Philip,  when  we  read  a  few  chapters  onward  in  the 
same  book,  (Acts  xxi.  8,)  we  find  him  spoken  of  as  "  Philip  the 
evangelist,  who  was  one  of  the  seven."  Here,  then,  we  find 
preci'sely  the  same  title  given  to  tliis  man  that  was  afterward 
given  to  Timoihy.  (2  Tim.  iv.  6.)  From  which  we  may  confi- 
dently infer,  that,  having  "  used  the  office  of  a  deacon  well," 
(1  Tim.  iii.  13,}  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  and  being  found  a 
man  "  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  wisdom,"  when  he  and  his 
brethren  were  driven  from  that  city,  and  were  all  "scattered 
abroad  in  consequence  of  the  persecution  which  arose  about  his 
colleague,  Stephen,"  he  was  invested  with  a  new  office,  and  sent 
forth  to  minister  in  various  parts  of  the  country  ao  an  "evange- 
list." At  any  rale,  notliing  is  plainer  than  that  the  "ministry 
of  the  word  "  made  no  part  of  the  deacon's  office,  as  laid  down 
by  the  Apostles ;  and  as  he  is  soon  afterward  introduced  to  us  as 
bearing  the  office  of  an  "evangelist,"  the  appropriate  function 
of  which  we  know  was  preaching  the  Gospel,  we  are  warranted 
in  concluding  that  he  was  set  apart  to  the  latter  office  before  he 
went  forth  to  engage  in  public  preaching.  In  short,  nntil  it 
can  be  proved  that  Philip  preached  and  baptized  as  a  deacon, 
and  not  as  an  evangelist, — which  we  are  perfectly  sure  never 
can  be  proved — the  allegation,  that  the  apostolic  deacons  were 
preachers,  is  perfectly  destitute  of  scriptural  support;  nay, 
directly  opposed  to  the  scriptural  account  of  the  institution  of 
their  office. 

Accordingly,  v/hen  in  the  subsequent  parts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment there  is  a  reference  to  the  proper  qualifications  for  the 
deacons'  office,  no  intimation  is  given  that,  in  the  candidates  for 
that  office,  the  gifts  requisite  for  public  instruction  were  re- 
ceived. We  are  told  that  it  was  necessary  that  those  who  bore, 
this  office  should  be  sober,  grave,  faithful  in  all  things,  ruling 
their  own  houses  well,  sound  in  the  faith,  &c.,  but  not  a  word 
of  their  being  "  apt  to  teach,"  as  was  expressly  demanded  of 
all  who  were  candidates  for  "  ministering  in  the  word  and 
doctrine." 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  "  the  order  of  deacons,"  as  one  of  the 
"three  orders  of  clergy,"  for  which  our  Episcopal  brethren 
contend,  cannot  stand  the  test  of  Scripture.  It  must,  undoubt- 
edl)'',  be  given  up,  if  we  would  be  governed  by  the  word  of  God. 
Deacons  there  undoubtedly  were  in  the  apostolic  Church  ;  but 
they  w^ere  evidently  curators  of  the  poor,  and  attendants  on  the 
tables  of  the  Church;  precisely  such  as  were  found  in  the 
Jewish  synagogues,  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  such  as 
are  found  in  all  completelj''  organi'zed  Presbyterian  churches  at 
the  present  day.    And  this  continued  to  be  the  nature  of  the 


TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  205 

office  for  several  hundred  years  after  the  apostolic  age.  But 
when  a  spirit  of  carnal  ambition  began  to  reign  in  the  Church, 
and  led  ecclesiastical  men  to  aspire  and  encroach,  deacons 
invaded  the  province  of  preachers,  and  committed  to  "sw6- 
deacons^^  the  burden  of  their  primitive  duties.* 

Having  thus  being  compelled  to  set  aside  one  "order"  of 
Episcopal  clergymen,  when  "  tested  by  Scripture,"  we  now 
proceed. 

II.  To  the  second  point  insisted  on  by  the  author  of  this 
Tract,  and  which,  indeed,  evidently  forms  his  main  object,  viz. 
that  we  are  taught  in  Scripture,  that  in  the  apostolic  Church, 
there  was  a  grade  of  ministers  of  the  Gospel  superior  to  the 
ordinary  pastors;  above  common  ministers  of  the  word  and 
sacraments ;  that  ministers  of  this  grade  were  alone  empowered 
to  ordain,  to  confirm,  and  to  govern  the  Church ; — and  that 
there  is  evidence  in  Scripture  that  this  arrangement  was  in- 
tended to  be  permanent.  Such  is  the  confident  allegation  of 
Bishop  Onderdonk;  and  he  professes  an  entire  willingness  to 
rest  this  Episcopal  claim  on  scriptural  testimony  alone.  It  is 
hoped  that  our  readers  will  bear  this  in  mind,  and  not  suffer 


*  The  following  extracts  from  early  writers  plainly  show,  not  only  that  the 
deacon's  office  was,  originally,  what  we  have  above  represented,  but  that  this  con- 
tinued 10  be  the  case  for  several  centuries.  Hermas,  one  of  the  apostolical  fathers, 
ja  his  Similitude,  9,  27,  tells  us  that  "  of  such  as  believed,  some  were  set  over 
inferior  functions,  or  services,  being  intrusted  with  the  care  of  the  poor  and 
tcidotcs."  Orjgen,  {Tract  16,  in  Matt.)  says,  "These  deacons  preside  over  Xht 
money-tables  of  the  Chvirch."  And  again,  "The  deacons  who  do  not  manage 
iccll  the  nwney  of  the  Church  committed  to  their  care,  but  act  a  franduient  part,  and 
dispense  it.  not  accoixiing  to  justice,  but  for  the  purpose  of  enriching  themselves; — 
these  actthe  part  of  money  changers,  and  keepers  of  those  tables  which  our  Lord  over- 
turned. For  the  deacons  were  appointed  to  preside  over  the  tables  of  the  Church,  as 
ice  are  taught  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles."  Cyprian,  (Epist.  52,)  speaks  of  a  certain 
deacon  who  had  l^een  deposed  from  his  "  sacred  deaconship  on  account  of  his  fraudu- 
lent atnl  sacrilegious  misapplication  of  the  Church's  moneij  to  his  own  private  use; 
and  for  his  denial  of  the  widows'  and  orphans'  pledges  deposited  with  him." 
And,  in  anotlier  place,  {Epist.  3,  ad  Rogatianum,)  as  a  proof  that  his  view 
of  this  office  is  not  misapprehended,  he  refers  the  appointment  of  the  first  deaconi; 
to  the  choice  and  ordination  at  Jerusalem,  as  already  recited.  Ambrose,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  fourth  century,  the  time  in  which  he  lived,  {Comment,  in  Ephes.  iv.) 
says,  "The  deacons  do  not  publicly  preach."  Chrysostom,  who  lived  in  the 
same  century,  in  his  commentary  on  Acts  vi.  remarks,  ihat  "  the  deacons  had 
need  of  great  wisdom,  although  ike  preaching  of  the  Gospel  was  not  committed  to 
them;"  and  observes  further,  that  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  tliat  they  should  have 
both  the  offices  of  preaching  and  taking  care  of  the  poor  committed  to  tiiem, 
.seeing  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  discharge  both  functions  adequately.  Jerome, 
in  his  letter  to  Evagrius,  calls  deacons  '^ministers  of  tables  and  widows.'' 
And  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  wliich,  though  undoubtedly  spurious  as 
an  apostolical  work,  may  probably  be  referred  to  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  it  i^ 
declared,  (Lib.  viii.  cap." 28.)  "  It  is  not  lawful  for  the  deacons  to  baptize  or  to  admi- 
nister the  eucbarist,  or  to  pronounce  tlie  srrcater  or  smaller  benediction."  Other 
citations,  to  the  same  amount,  might  easily  be  produced.  But  it  is  unnecessary. 
The  above  fnrnish  a  clear  indication  of  the  nature  of  the  deacon's  office  in  the 
primitive  Chorch.  Yet  as  this  testimony  is  not  that  of  Scripture,  it  has  not 
been  thought  proper  to  embrace  it  in  the  body  of  our  review,  but  to  present  it 
in  this  form,  that  it  may  be  estimated  for  wiiat  it  is  worth.  And  surely,  on  the 
principles  of  our  Episcopal  brethren,  it  is  worth  much. 
18 


206  REVIEW— EPISCOPACY 

themselves  for  a  moment  to  forget  that  our  appeal  is  to  the 
Bible,  and  lo  the  Bible  only.  Does  the  Bible,  then,  counte- 
nance the  claim  that  prelates,  or  an  order  of  ministers  superior 
to  ordinary  pastors,  and  having  alone  a  right  to  ordain^  &c. 
were  established  by  Divine  appointment  in  the  apostolic  age, 
and  intended  to  be  a  permanent  order  in  the  Christian  Church? 
The  author  of  the  Tract  before  us  maintains  the  affirmative. 
We  are  constrained  with  confidence  to  take  the  negative  side, 
and  to  the  Scriptures  we  make  our  appeal. 

Bishop  Onderdonk  sets  out  in  his  argument  with  acknowledg- 
ing that  "  the  name  bishop,  which  now  (among  Episcopalians) 
designates  the  highest  grade  of  the  ministry,  is  not  appropriated 
to  that  office  in  Scripture.  That  name,  he  confesses,  is  there 
alwaijs  given  to  the  middle  order  of  presbyters;  and  all  that  we 
read  in  the  New  Testament  concerning  '  bishops,'  (including,  of 
course,  the  words  'overseers'  and  'oversight,'  which  have  the 
same  derivation)  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining  to  that  middle 
grade.  The  highest  grade  is  there  found  in  those  called  'apos- 
tles.' And  it  was  after  the  apostolic  age  that  the  name 
*  bishop'  was  taken  from  the  second  order,  and  appropriated 
to  the  first.  In  short,  the  doctrine  of  this  Tract  is,  that  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostles,  the  title  of  bishop  was  applied  to  presby- 
ters, that  is,  to  ordinary  pastors,  or  parish  ministers,  and  to 
them  alo7ie;  that  during  this  time  the  Apostles  were  the  prelates 
of  the  Church  ;  that  the  Apostles  alone,  while  they  lived,  were 
invested  with  the  power  of  ordination ;  that  when  they  died, 
they  were  succeeded  in  their  pre-eminent  rank  by  ministers  of 
a  corresponding  grade;  that  this  superior  class  of  ministers, 
who  were  the  true  and  only  successors  of  the  Apostles,  thought 
proper  lo  drop  the  name  of  '-apostles,"  (whether  through 
modesty  or  policy  the  author  does  not  say,)  and  to  assume  that 
of  "bishop,"  which  had  before  belonged  to  common  pastors. 
All  this,  we  are  given  to  understand,  can  he  demonstrated  from 
Scripture.* 

In  regard  to  the  first  step  in  this  train  of  allegations — for  we 
will  not  call  it  argument — we  entirely  agree  with  Dr.  Onderdonk. 


*  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  author  of  this  Tract  differs  widely  in  tiie  ground 
which  he  assumes  from  one  of  the  most  learned  and  able  advocates  of  Episcopacy  ^ 
that  ever  lived.  We  refer  to  the  celebrated  Dr.  Henry  Hammond,  undoubtedly 
one  of  the  most  erudite  and  able  divines  of  the  Church  of  England  that  lived 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  and  at  least  equal  in  learning  and  talent  to  any  bishop 
uow  on  the  stage.  He  niMintained,  in  direct  opposition  to  Bishop  Onderdonk,  that 
all  the  persons  denominated  bishops  and  presbyters  in  the  New  Testament,  (the 
names  being  then  common.)  were  prelates  or  bishops,  properly  so  called  ;  and  that 
the  second  order,  that  of  presbyters,  was  not  instituted  until  after  the  apostolic  age. 
Dr.  Hammond  appears  to  have  been  just  as  confident  that  his  doctrine  was 
tauglit  in  Scripture  as  our  author  can  be  that  the  opposite  to  it  is  there  found. 
VVliich  of  these  prelatical  champions  shall  we  believe?  "  Who  shrill  decide  when 
doctors  disagree  1 "  We  are  peisuaded  that  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament 
frowns  equally  upon  both.  In  the  meanwhile,  it  appears  that  our  Episcopal 
friends  are  not  agreed  in  the  ground  which  they  take  for  the  support  ol  their 
cause. 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  801 

Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  lliat  whenever  the  title  of  "bishop'* 
is  applied  in  the  New  Testament  lo  Gospel  ministers,  it  designates 
ordinary  pastors.  A  scriptural  bishop  was  the  spiritual  teacher 
and  guide,  or  "  overseer,"  of  a  particular  flock ;  and  the  same 
men  were  called  "elders,"  or  "  presbyters,"  and  "  bishops  "  inier- 
ehangeably,  the  names  being  common.  This  Dr.  Onderdonk 
concedes,  and  we  have  no  doubt  with  entire  correctness.  But 
in  all  the  succeeding  steps  of  his  course,  we  have  quite  as  little 
doubt  that  he  proceeds  without  the  smallest  support  from  Scrip- 
ture; nay,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  whole  spirit  and  scope  of 
the  New  Testament. 

This  writer  contends — and  it  is  essential  to  his  cause  that  he 
be  able  to  show — that  while  the  Apostles  lived  they  bore  a  supe- 
rior ecclesiastical  rank,  and  were  endowed  with  ecclesiastical 
rights  superior  to  other  ministers;  that,  in  particular,  the  right 
of  orrfamt«^  was  confined  lothem  ;  and  that,  when  their  ministry 
terminated,  they  left  this  pre-eminent  raiik,  and  these  peculiar 
rights,  lo  certain  prelates,  who  were  their  successors  in  power 
and  pre-eminence.  Now  the  fact  is,  that  all  these  points,  though 
brought  forward  with  some  show,  and  even  parade  of  argument, 
are  wholly  without  support  from  Scripture,  and  have  not  one  of 
them  been  made  out  by  our  author.  It  is  not  denied,  indeed, 
that  the  Apostles  bore  a  peculiar  character,  and  had  extraordi- 
nary pmvers  and  prerogatives  imparled  to  them,  adapted  to  the 
pectihar  rircnmsiances  in  which  they  were  placed.  For,  until 
the  cjinon  of  the  New  Testament  was  completed,  they  might  be 
said,  to  a  certain  extent,  to  supply  its  place,  and  by  inspiration 
and  the  exercise  of  miraculous  powers,  to  be,  in  a  peculiar  sense, 
the  authorized  leaders  and  guides  of  the  primitive  Church.  "The 
apostolic  office" — says  Dr.  Barrow,  universally  known  to  be  an 
eminent  Episc6pal  divine — ^^  as  such,  was  personal  and  tempo- 
rary; and,  therefore,  according  to  its  nature  and  design,  not 
sttccessive,  nor  communicable  to  others,  in  perpetual  descendence 
from  them.  It  was,  as  such,  in  all  respects  extraordinarij $ 
conferred  in  a  special  wanner  ;  designed  for  special  purposes  ; 
discharged  by  special  aids ;  endowed  with  special  prioilegeSy 
as  was  needful  for  the  propagation  of  Christianity,  and  founding 
of  churches.  To  that  office  it  was  requisite  that  the  person 
should  have  an  immediate  designation  and  commission  from 
God;  that  he  should  be  endowed  with  miraculous  gifts  and 
graces;  that  he  should  be  able,  according  to  his  discretion,  to 
impart  spiritual  gifts;  and  that  he  should  govern  in  an  absolute 
manner,  as  being  guided  by  infallible  assistance,  to  which  he 
might  appeal.  Now  such  an  office,  consisting  of  so  many  extra- 
ordinary privileges,  and  miraculous  powers,  whicli  were  requisite 
for  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  was  not  designed  to  continue 
by  derivation  ;  for  it  contained  in  it  divers  things,  wliich  appa- 
rently were  not  communicated,  and  which  no  man  without  gross 
imposture  and  hyporrisv.  could  challenge  to  himself."  Pope^a 
Supremacy,  pp.  122, 123,  A'.  Y.  edition.    Such  was  the  judgment. 


208  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

of  this  eminently  learned  and  able  Episcopalian,  concerning  the 
foundation  of  the  whole  argument  before  us.  There  is  not  a 
shadow  of  support  to  be  found  in  Scripture  for  the  alleged 
transmission  of  the  pre-eminent  and  peculiar  powers  of  the 
Apostles  to  a  set  of  ecclesiastical  successors.  As  men  endowed 
with  the  gifts  of  inspiration  and  miracles,  and  constituted  ths 
infallible  guides  of  the  Church,  until  the  New  Testament  canon 
should  be  completed  ;  their  character  and  position  were  alto- 
gether extraordinary.  They  had  no  successors.  Nor  can  the 
remotest  hint  be  found  in  Scripture,  that  they  had,  or  were  ever 
intended  to  have,  any  such  successors. 

But,  considering  the  Apostles  as  ministers  of  Christ,  empow- 
ered to  preach  the  Gospel,  to  administer  Christian  sacraments, 
and  to  convert  the  world  to  Christ,  they  had  successors :  and 
these  successors  were,  manifestly,  all  those  who  were  empowered 
to  preach  the  Gospel,  and  to  dispense  the  sacramental  seals  of 
discipleship;  for  in  the  final  commission  which  the  Saviour  gave 
to  the  Apostles,  and  which  must  be  considered  as  embracing 
their  final  and  highest  functions,  they  are  sent  forth  to  disciple 
:ill  nations,  to  baptize  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  :  and  it  wais  in  immediate  connexion 
with  the  command  to  discharge  these  ordinary  duties,  that  the 
promise  which  is  considered  as  pointing  to  the  ministerial  succes- 
sion was  given — "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end 
of  the  world."  If  the  friends  of  prelacy  could  produce  even  the 
semblance  of  testimony  from  Scripture,  that  the  ordaining  power 
is  something  more  sacred  and  elevated  than  that  of  dispensing 
the  Gospel,  and  its  sealing  ordinances;  if  they  could  produce 
the  least  hint  from  the  New  Testament  that  the  powers  possessed 
by  the  Apostles  were,  after  their  decease,  divided  ,\and  that  while 
one  class  of  ministers  succeeded  to  their  lower  and  more  ordi- 
nary functions,  another  succeeded  to  certain  pre-emijient  rights 
and  powers,  not  specified  in  their  commission  ;  they  would  have 
some  plausible  ground  on  which  to  rest  their  cause.  But  every 
reader  of  the  New  Testament  knows  that  there  is  not  a  syllable 
there  which  gives  the  most  distant  intimation  of  either  of  these 
alleged  facts.  On  the  contrary,  the  evidence  against  them  is 
ample  and  decisive. 

Suppose,  for  argument's  sake,  that  a  pastor  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  were  sent  to  China  or  Japan  to  preach  the  Gospel,  and, 
if  successful,  to  organize  churches,  agreeably  to  his  views  of 
truth  and  order.  Suppose  it  not  possible  to  send  more  than 
one,  and  that  he  were  invested  with  power  by  the  proper 
authority,  in  this  forming  stale  of  things,  to  ordain  ministers, 
and  perform  every  ecclesiastical  act  necessary  to  complete  a 
Christian  organization.  Would  this  man  be  considered,  by  any 
rational  inquirer,  as  clothed  with  a  new  office,  or  as  elevated  to  a 
peculiar  or  separate  "  order  of  clergy  ?"  Surely  not.  He  would 
be  considered  simply  as  an  "evangelist,"  invested  with  special 
powers  from  the  necessity  of  the  case.     And  when  the  churches 


TESTED    BY    8CRIPTDRE.  209 

organized  by  him  were  prepared  for  a  regular  and  mature  Pres- 
byterian arrangement,  would  any  be  so  absurd  as  to  imagine 
that  the  ministers  ordained  by  him  were  his  "successors"  in 
regard  to  the  special  commission  and  powers  under  which  he 
had  acted  ?  Such  an  idea  would  be  too  preposterous  to  be  enter- 
tained by  any  one.  They  would  be  simply  his  successors  in 
respect  to  his  original  and  ordinary  powers ;  and  every  thing 
connected  with  his  extraordinary  delegation  would  terminate 
with  the  extraordinary  circumstances  which  gave  it  birth.  He 
would  transmit,  of  course,  to  those  ordained  by  him,  nothing 
more  than  that  simple  office  which  he  bore  anterior  to  his 
peculiar  mission. 

Thus  it  was  with  the  Apostles.  Their  commission,  as  stated 
with  great  particularity  by  the  evangelists,  empowered  them  to 
preach,  to  baptize,  to  disciple  all  nations,  and  to  teach  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  Christ  had  commanded.  All 
other  permanent  powers  were  included  in  these  ;  for  there  are 
none  others  mentioned.  All  ministers  of  the  Gospel  bear  this 
commission.  When  the  Apostles  left  the  world,  their  inspira- 
tion, their  miracles,  their  prerogative  of  guiding  the  churches 
by  infallible  teaching — in  a  word,  the  extraordinary  charactei 
with  which  they  were  invested,  died  with  them,  and  all  that 
they  transmitted  was  that  which  was  embraced  in  their  commis- 
sion. That  they  did  not  transmit  a  large  and  very  prominent 
part  of  their  extraordinary  powers.  Episcopalians  themselves 
acknowledge.  We  know  not  that  any  modern  Protestant  bish- 
ops claim  to  be  inspired,  to  have  the  power  of  working  miracles, 
or  of  authoritatively  prescribing  the  will  of  Christ  to  the  Churchy 
in  place  of  the  New  Testament.  All  these  adjuncts  or  annexa- 
tions to  ihe'ir  general  office,  constituting  them  apostles,  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  word,  our  Episcopal  brethren  confess  ceased 
when  the  last  Apostle  left  the  world.  'Jhis  was,  no  doubt,  the 
case.  Where,  then,  is  the  evidence  of  which  these  same  bre- 
thren talk  so  much,  of  their  transmitting  the  pre-eminence  and 
superiority  of  tlieir  character  to  a  class  of  superior  successors  ? 

Bishop  Onderdonk,  from  the  circumstance  that  he  finds  the 
"  apostles  and  elders"  frequently  distinguished  from  each  other 
in  the  New  Testament  history,  takes  for  granted  that  they  were 
thus  distinguished,  because  the  former  were  ministers  of  a  supe- 
rior order  or  rank  to  the  latter.  He  also  supfjoses  that  he  finds 
evidence  in  the  New  Testament,  not  only  that  the  Apostles 
ordained,  but  that  they  alone  had  the  power  of  ordination  while 
they  lived.  Now,  we  will  venture  to  say  that  there  is  not  a  sha- 
dow of  evidence  in  favor  of  either  of  these  allegations  in  the  Word 
of  God.  As  to  the  office  of  the  apostles  and  elders  or  presbytery 
it  was  undoubtedly  the  same  in  all  its  essential  characteristics. 
Let  at  y  unprejudiced  reader  examine  the  commission  given  by 
our  Lord  to  the  twelve,  and  afterward  to  the  seventy,  and  then 
say,  whether  grades  of  power,  and  diversities  of  clerical  rank^ 
are  masked  therein.  Let  him  say  whether  it  includes  any  thing 
18* 


210  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

(excepting  the  supernatural  pari  of  their  powers)  but  what 
belongs  to  every  minister  of  the  Gospel.  Authority  to  preach 
the  Gospel,  to  administer  sealing  ordinances,  and  to  make  disci- 
ples of  all  to  whom  they  are  sent,  formed  the  substance  of  the 
apostolical  commission  j  and  the  very  same  forms  the  essence 
of  the  commission  of  all  regular  ministers  now.  Our  author, 
indeed,  ventures  to  affirm,  that  the  Apostles  were  not  distin- 
guished from  other  ministers,  while  they  lived — because  they 
vy^ere  appointed  by  Christ  personally ;  nor  because  they  had 
'•seen  tlie  Lord"  after  his  resurrection;  nor  because  of  their 
miraculous  powers;  but  because  they  sustained  a  superior  office. 
This,  he  says.  ^'- will  not  he  questioned?^  We  certainly,  liovv- 
ever,  do  question  it ;  and  are  quite  sure  that  he  has  not  proved 
it,  and  cannot  prove  it,  from  Scripture,  or  from  any  other  credi- 
ble source  of  evidence.  In  fact,  it  may  be  said  with  truth,  that 
we  have  nothing  in  the  pamphlet  before  us,  adduced  in  favor  of 
this  position,  worth  mentioning,  but  the  simple  affirmation  of  the 
writer,  which,  on  such  a  subject,  we  beg  leave  to  decline  accept- 
ing as  conclu.sive. 

The  simple  and  plain  truth  of  the  case  is  this.  The  Apostles 
were  all  presbyters  or  elders.  This,  and  this  only^  was  their 
proper  ecclesiastical  offi,ce.  Accordingly,  the  Apostle  Peter 
speaks  thus — "  The  elders  which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who 
am  also  an  elder,  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and 
also  a  partaker  of  the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed."  Such  was 
Peter,  if  he  himself  understood  his  office ;— an  elder.  But  he 
was. an  inspired  elder;  an  elder  endowed  with  miraculous 
gifts  ;  an  elder  who  had  "  witnessed  the  sufferings "  and 
resurrection  of  Christ  ;  an  elder  chosen  to  be  one  of  the  num 
ber  who  should  preside  over  the  forming  and  rising  Church 
under  its  new  economy,  before  its  written  body  of  instructions 
were  prepared,  and  even  to  assist  in  preparing  those  instructions; 
and,  for  that  purpose,  inspired  of  God  to  counsel,  guide,  and 
instruct  the  churches  for  their  permanent  edification.  Such 
were  the  Apostles  generally.  When  they  died,  the  in^piratio7i, 
the  miracles  and  the  peculiar  apostolical  authority  died  with 
them,  and  they  simply  transmitted  their  office  as  elders  or  pres- 
byters to  their  successors.  All  this  is  plainly  to  be  gathered 
from  the  tenor  of  the  New  Testament;  and  when  Bishop 
Onderdonk  undertakes  to  press  the  testimony  of  Scripture  into 
the  support  of  any  other  doctrine,  he  fails,  in  our  opinion,  most 
egregiously. 

Quite  as  little  proof  have  we  that  the  ordaining-  power  was 
exercised  by  the  Apostles  alone,  while  they  lived.  Or  rather, 
this  position  is  still  more  directly  opposed  to  abundant  scriptural 
evidence.  We  know  that  it  was  not  so.  Timothy,  and  Titus, 
and  Barnabas  all  ordained  ;  and  yet  they  were  none  of  them 
apostles,  in  the  appropriate  sense  of  that  title.  In  order  to  sur- 
mount this  difficulty,  however,  our  author,  with  many  others 
who  have  gone  before  him  in  this  controversy,  takes  the  liberty 


TESTED   BY   SCRIPTDRE.  211 

of  supposing  that  Timothy,  Titus,  Barnabas,  Silvanus,  Andro- 
nicus,  Junia,  Epaphroditus,  and  others  were  all  apostles,  in  the 
pre-eminent  sense  of  the  word,  though  confessedly  not  of  the 
number  of  the  twelve  ;  and  thai,  therefore,  when  we  read  of  any 
of  these  exercising  ihe  ordaining  power,  we  are  lo  consider  it  as 
falling  in  with  the  Episcopal  claim,  and  as  confirming  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Tract  before  us.  We  have  always  considered  this 
plea  as  one  of  the  forlorn  hopes  of  our  Episcopal  brethren,  and 
as  mucli  more  adapted  to  expose  than  lo  aid  their  cause.  And 
as  wielded  by  our  author,  it  certainly  does  not  appear  to  more 
advantagej  than  in  the  hands  of  those  from  whom  he  borrowed 
it.  It  is  well  known  to  learned  men  that  the  original  Greek 
word  which  we  translate  apostle,  signifies  a  messenger,  or  07ie 
who  is  sent  on  any  errand,  either  sacred  or  secular.  It  is  well 
known,  also,  that  it  has,  in  the  New  Testament,  a  peculiar  or 
appropriated,  and  a  common  signification  ;  and  that  its  peculiar 
application  is  to  that  chosen  band  of  men,  who  were  endowed 
and  sent  in  an  extraordinary  manner  by  Christ  himself.  Of 
the  peculiar  or  restricted  application  of  this  title  we  need  not 
select  specific  examples.  They  are  numerous  and  well  known. 
In  this  high  and  exclusive  sense,  we  are  expressly  told  it  was 
confined  to  tliose  who  had  ''seen  the  Lord,"  and  who  were 
"  wilnesses  of  his  sufferings  and  his  resurrection."  In  this 
sense  it  was  applied  to  the  twelve,  and  afterward  to  Matthias, 
who  was  chosen  to  take  the  place  of  Judas,  "  who  by  transgres- 
sion fell."  And,  in  the  same  specific  meaning  of  the  tiile,  Paul 
was  an  apostle,  who  was  made  to  "  see  the  Lord,"  in  a  miracu- 
lous manner,  and  who  was  '^  chosen  lo  be  a  uitnvss  unto  all 
men*  of  what  he  had  seen  and  heard."  Let  any  impartial  man, 
who  doubts  whether  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  title  of  apostle,  in 
its  primary  and  pre-eminent  sense,  as  applied  to  those  on  whom 
our  Lord  himself  bestowed  it ;  let  him  read  the  following  scrip- 
tures, and  he  will  no  longer  doubt.  Matt.  x.  1-6;  Luke  vi. 
12-17;  Acts  i.  21,  22;  Luke  xxiv.  48 ;  Acts  xxii.  14,  15;  Acts 
xxiii.  11 ;  Acts  xxvi.  16,  together  with  man}'  other  parallel  pas 
sages,  which  will  readily  occur  to  all  who  are  familiar  with  the 
Bible. 

With  this  representation  of  the  apostolic  office.  Dr.  Barrow, 
the  learned  Episcopal  divine  before  quoted,  entirely  agrees. 
<'To  the  office  of  an  apostle,"  says  he,  "  it  was  requisite  that.the 
person  should  have  an  immediate  designation  and  commission 
from  God  ;  such  as  St.  Paul  so  often  doth  insist  upon  for  assert- 
ing his  titleto  this  ofl^ee— "  Patil,  an  apostle,  not  from  men  or  by 
man."  "Not by  men,"saith  St.  Chrysostom  ;  '4his  is  the  property 
of  the  apostles."  It  was  requisitethat  an  apostle  should  be  able 
to  attest  concerning  our  Lord's  resurrection  or  ascension,  either 
immediately,  as  the  twelve,  or  by  evident  consequences,  as  St. 
Paul;  thus  St.  Peter  implied,  at  the  choice  of  Matthias— "Where- 
fore of  those  men  which  have  companied  with  us,  must  one  be 
ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  the  resurrection: "  and,  "Am  I 


212  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

not,"  saith  St.  Paul,  "an  apostle?  have  I  not  seen  the  Lord? 
According  to  that  <»f  Ananias— '  The  God  of  our  fatliers  hath 
chosen  thee,  that  thou  sh<»uldest  know  his  will,  and  see  that  just 
One,  and  shouldest  hear  the  voice  of  his  mouth  ;  for  thou  shall 
bear  witness  unto  all  men  of  what  thou  hast  seen  and  heard." 
— Pope's  Supremacy,  p.  122. 

But  the  term  apostle  {avoaToUi)  is  also  sometimes  applied  in 
the  New  Testament  to  men  who  were  not  thus  immediately 
commissioned  by  Christ  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  to  bie 
"witnesses  of  his  sufferings  and  his  resurr^^ction  ;"  but  who  were 
simply  messengers^  sent  on  particular  occasions  to  perform  a 
certain  service.  This  distinction  between  the  official^  and  the 
lax  or  general  sense  of  this  term,  the  learned  translators  of  our 
English  Bible,  though  themselves  zealous  Episcopalians,  seldom 
fail  to  recognise.  Thus  Paul,  in  writing  to  the  Philippians,  ii.25, 
says  —  "f  supposed  it  necessary  to  send  unto  you  Epaphro- 
ditus,  ray  brother  and  companion  in  labor,  but  your  messenger^ 
(a»roffroXos,)  and  he  that  ministered  to  my  wants."  Epaphroditus 
had  been  sent  by  the  Philippians  as  a  messenger^  or  bearer  of 
their  bounty  to  Paul.  This  we  learn  not  only  from  the  pas- 
sage just  quoted,  but  also  from  chapter  iv.  18,  of  the  same  epis- 
tle. Accordingly  he  is  styled  ^'- their  messenger."  Surely  it 
would  be  preposterous  to  consider  the  original  word  as  import- 
ing that  he  was  an  apostle  in  the  ofl^cial  sense  of  that  term. 
Aoain,  the  same  Apostle,  in  designating  certain  brethren  sent 
with  Titus  to  bear  the  Church's  bounty  to  Jeru.salem,  speaks 
of  them  thus — '<  Whether  any  do  inquire  of  Titus,  he  is  my 
partner  and  fellow-helper  concerning  you:  or  our  brethren  be 
inquired  of,  they  are  the  messengers  (awotrroXoi)  of  the  churches, 
and  the  glory  <)f  Christ."  Here  the  very  same  rule  of  inter- 
pretation applies;  and  accordingly  so  judged  the  pious  translat- 
ors of  our  Bible;  and  therefore  tliey  rendered  the  word  messen- 
gers, not  ''  apostles." 

With  regard  to  the  alleged  apostleship  of  TimotViy  and  Silva- 
nus,  it  is  eqtidlly  unsupported.  They  are  never  called  apostles 
in  a  single  instance  in  Scripture.  It  is  true,  the  first  epistle  to 
the  Thessalonians  begins  thus  — "Paul,  and  Silvanus,  and 
Timotheus,  unto  the  church  of  the  Thessalonians,"  &c. ;  and 
in  the  next  chapter  of  the  same  epistle,  the  Apostle  speaks  thus — 
"Nor  of  men  sought  we  glory,  neither  of  you,  nor  yet  of  others, 
when  we  might  have  been  burdensome  as  the  apostles  of  Christ." 
In  this  latter  verse,  the  Apostle  undoubtedly  either  speaks  of 
himself  in  the  plural  number,  which  he  often  does ;  or  refers  to 
some  other  of  the  Apostles,  of  whom  the  same  might  be  said. 
That  in  using  this  language,  he  did  not  refer  to  Silvanus,  or 
Timotheus,  is  plain,  because,  in  a  verse  or  two  before,  he  says 
— still  using  the  plural  number — "  We  were  shamofnily  entreated, 
as  ye  know,  at  Philippi,"  &c.  When  the  Apostle  was  treated 
with  so  much  violence  at  Philippi,  certainly  Timotheus  was 
not  with  him.    Besides,  neither  Silvanus  nor  Timotheus  was  "a 


TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  213 

witness"  of  the  sufferings  and  resurrection  of  their  Master. 
Neither  of  them  was  immediately  commissioned  by  the  Saviour 
himself,  as  the  Apostles  were:  on  the  contrary,  Timothy  was 
ordained,  agreeably  to  the  simple  apostolical  practice,  "with  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery."  And  the  Apostle 
Paul,  in  other  places,  while  he  speaks  affectionately  of  his  "son 
in  the  faith,"  at  the  same  time  mentions  him  in  a  manner  which 
plainly  evinces  a  marjced  distinction  between  his  office  and  that 
of  the  apostleship.  Take  as  an  example,  2  Cor.  i.  1—"  Paul,  an 
apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  Timothy  our  brother.''^  And, 
again,  Colossians  i.  1 — "Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
Timothy  our  brother.''''  Here  we  have  the  very  same  evidence 
of  diversity  of  rank  that  our  author  deems  so  decisive  when  he 
finds  mention  made  of  apostles  and  elders.  Surely  the  humble 
and  affectionate  Paul  would  not  have  spoken  thus,  if  Timothy- 
had  possessed  an  equal  right  with  himself  to  the  title  of  "an 
apostle  of  Jesds  Christ,"  in  the  official  and  appropriate  sense 
of  that  title. 

The  claim  advanced  in  behalf  of  Andronicus  and  Junia,*  as 
apostles,  is  not  only  unfounded,  but  really  bordering  on  the 
ridiculous.  The  only  testimony  advanced  in  support  of  this 
claim,  is  the  language  of  the  Apostle  Paul  in  the  close  of  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  xvi.  7 — "  Salute  Andronicus  and  Junia, 
my  kinsmen,  and  my  fellow-prisoners,  who  are  of  note  among 
the  Apostles."  This  passage  would  never  have  been  thought  of 
as  admitting  the  construction  which  the  friends  of  prelacy  attach 
to  it,  had  not  their  cause  stood  greatly  in  need  of  testimony.  Its 
obvious  and  simple  meaning  is,  that  these  persons  were  "held  in 
high  estimation  by  the  Apostles ; "  or  were  regarded  by  the  Apos- 
tles as  of  note,  or  conspicuous  among  their  friends.  This  is  the 
general  interpretation  of  intelligent  and  impartial  commentators; 
and  more  cannot  be  made  of  the  passage,  unless  by  those  who 
resolve  that  it  shall  speak  in  favor  of  their  cause. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  none  of  these  persons  were  apostles, 
in  the  official  and  restricted  sense  of  that  title;  and  as  we 
know  that  Barnabas,  Timothy,  and  Titus,  ordained,  it  follows, 
inevitably,  that  the  ordaining  power  was  not  confined  to  the 
Apostles  while  they  lived  ;  and,  of  course,  that  this  whole  branch 
of  our  author's  argument  falls  to  the  ground.  Nothing  can  be 
plainer  than  that  "  pastors,"  "  teachers,"  and  "  evangelists,"  even 


♦  There  is  some  reason  to  believe  that  Junia,  one  of  these  persons  whom  Bishop 
Onderdonk  has  dul)bed  apostles,  was  a  woman  !  The  name,  as  it  stands  in  the 
original  is  'loun'av,  whicli  has  no  article  to  indicate  the  gender,  and  which  may 
come  as  well  from  'loovta,  as  from  'louvtaj.  F.ther  Calmet  remarks — "  St.  Chry- 
sostom.  Theophylact.  and  several  others,  tnke  Andronicus  for  a  man  and  Junia  for 
a  woman,  perhaps  his  wife.  The  Greeks  and  Latins  l<er>p  their  festival,  May  17tb, 
as  husband  and  wife."  Rosnnmuelier's  annotation  on  tlie  passage  is  as  follows— - 
•'(cat  luuviav.  Quae  vi'letnr  fuisse  uxor  Andronici.  .AWs  Junias  est  nomen  viri, 
pro  Junius."  What  renders  it  mo;e  probable  tliat  Junia  was  a  woman  is.  that  a 
man  and  his  wife,  a  man  and  his  sister,  and  two  other  females,  are  undoubtedly 
saluted  in  the  preceding  and  following-  verses  of  the  eame  chapter. 


214  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

while  the  Apostles  lived,  often  officiated  in  ordinations — not 
merely  as  hninhle  assistants,  but  as  principals,  in  investing  others 
with  the  sacred  office. 

The  manner  in  which  Bishop  Onderdonk  undertakes  to  dispose 
of  the  plain  record,  that  Timothy  was  set  apart  to  his  office, 
"  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,"  is  one  of 
the  most  singular  examples  of  evasion  and  management  that  we 
remember  ever  to  have  seen.  He  is  confident  that  the  Apostle, 
when  he  says,  (1  Tim.  iv.  14,)  "  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in 
thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  os 
OF  THE  HANDS  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY,"  has  110  reference  to  Timothy's 
ordination.  Why  ?  For  no  other  earthly  reason,  that  we  can 
perceive,  than  that  this  supposition  would  make  agaitisl  the 
Episcopal  claim.  He  does  not  deny,  indeed,  that  it  iJiay  refer  to 
that  transaction  ;  but  he  says,  "it  cannot,  at  least,  be  proced  to 
do  so  ;"  and  he  chooses  rather  to  consider  it  as  "a  separation  of 
one,  already  in  the  ministry,  to  a  particular  field  of  duty."  In- 
deed, his  aversion  to  ordination  by  a  "  presbytery,"  is  so 
determined  and  invincible,  that,  rather  than  admit  that  this 
passage  refers  to  Timothy's  ordination,  he  intimates  his  will- 
ingness to  give  up  another  passage,  in  which  the  Apostle  (2  Tim. 
i.  6,)  speaks  of  "  the  gift  of  God  which  was  in  Timothy  by  the 
putting  on  of  his  (Paul's)  hands,"  as  also  having  no  reference 
to  his  ordination  !  And  he  gravely  remarks,  that,  "  if  it  have 
not,  then  Timothy's  ordination  is  nowhere  specifically  mentioned, 
but  is  to  be  inferred,  as  in  other  cases;  and,  in  this  view,  both 
these  passages  are  unconnected  with  the  controversy  before  us." 
The  truth  is,  if  these  passages  refer  to  different  transactions,  it 
is  much  more  probable  that  the  former  refers  to  Timothy's 
ordination  than  the  latter,  simply  because  in  every  instance  in 
which  we  find  a  specific  account  given  of  an  ordination  in  the 
New  Testament,  there  was  a  'plurality  of  ordainers.  But  the 
probability  is,  that  they  refer  to  the  same  transaction,  viz.  the 
one  ordination  of  Timothy:  and  that  Paul  presided  in  the 
"  presbytery"  when  that  ordination  was  performed,  "  laying  on 
hands"  with  the  rest  of  the  brethren,  wljich  we  know  is  every 
day  d(me  in  our  presbyteries,  when,  as  is  commonly  the  case, 
one  of  the  older  members  presides,  and  lakes  the  lead  in  impos- 
ing hands,  and  is  the  mouth  of  the  body  in  the  ordaining  prayer. 

But  even  allowing  that  the  Apostle,'  in  that  passage  in  which 
he  speaks  of  the  "laying  on  of  the  hands  of  ilie  presbytery," 
refers  to  Timothy's  ordination,  still,  our  author  insists  that  no 
argument  favorable  to  pivsbytery  can  be  drawn  from  this  con- 
fessiim.  The  word  {Upta^vrt^tov)  rendered  "presbytery,"  he 
alleges  way  mean — not  a  l3ody  of  presbyters,  but  the  office  of 
the  presbylerate,  or  presbytership  itself.  So  that  he  would 
propose  to  translate  the  passage  tlius — "with  the  laying  on  of 
hands  to  confer  the  presbyterale.''  In  support  of  this  fanciful 
and.  ridiculous  translation,  he  quotes  Groiius,  and  refers  also  to 
Calvin,  as  giving  to  it  the  countenance  of  his  opinion.    Now,  it  is 


TESTED    BY   SCRIPTUHE.  215 

granted  that  Caivin,  in  his  fnstilutes,  (Lib.  iv.  chap.  3,  seet.  16,) 
does  express  himself  in  a  manner  which  favors  tliis  interpreta- 
tion ;  but  afterward,  when  he  catne  lo'wrile  his  commentary  on 
Timothy,  when  on  every  principle  of  justice,  we  ought  to  con- 
sider him  as  expressing  his  more  mature  opinion,  he  delivers  the 
following  explicit  judgment — -'Presbytery — those  who  consider 
this  as  a  collective  term,  intended  to  express  a  college  of  pres- 
byters, in  my  opinion  judge  correctly."*  But  let  this  virtual 
misrepresentation  of  Calvjn  pass.  It  might  be  expected,  how- 
ever, that,  after  admitting  this  interpretation  of  the  passage,  as 
referring,  not  to  a  body  of  ordaiiiers,  under  the  name  of  a  pres- 
bytery, but  to  the  office  of  the  presbyterate  ;  it  would,  of  course, 
be  admitted  that  Timothy  was  now  made  di  presbyter,  or  invested 
with  the  office  of  the  presbyterate.  Not  at  all !  This  inference, 
which  would  seem  to  be  irresistible,  (and  which,  by  the  way,  is 
that  which  Calvin  assumes  in  the  passage  referred  to  by  Bishop 
Onderdonk,)  must  at  any  rate  be  "neutralized,"  to  employ  the 
significant  language  of  our  author.  In  order  to  accomplish 
this,  he  reminds  us  that  the  titles  of  presbyter,  bishop,  deacon, 
&c.,  are  so  "loosely"  and  interchangeably  applied  in  the  New 
Testament  to  all  classes  of  officers,  even  to  apostles,  that  nothing 
conclusive  can  be  drawn  from  a  name.  On  the  whole,  it  is 
evident  that  such  are  the  spectacles  with  which  this  gentleman 
views  every  object  which  relates  to  this  controversy,  that  facts, 
names,  and  the  plainest  statements,  if  they  happen  to  make 
against  the  claim  of  Episcopacy, —  are  nothing, —  absolutely 
nothing.  They  are  to  be  moulded,  tortured,  or  nullified  at 
pleasure.  But  the  remotest  hint  that  can,  by  possibility,  be 
pressed  into  the  service  of  prelacy,  is  a  conclusive  argutnent. 
We  have  no  doubt  of  the  entire  honesty  of  all  this  on  the  part  of 
our  author.  But  it  shows  the  wonderful  sway  of  prejudice.  A 
man  who  has  been  long  in  the  habit  of  gravely  repeating  the 
most  irrelative  and  powerless  representations  from  year  to  year, 
and  calling  them  arguments,  generally  comes  at  length,  sincerely 
to  believe  them  not  only  true,  but  irrefragable. 

Bishop  Onderdonk,  however,  after  plunging  from  difficulty  to 
difficulty,  and  from  one  utter  failure  of  proof  to  another,  in  this 
part  of  his  argument,  still  insists  upon  it  that  Timothy  and  Titus 
are  represented  in  the  New  Testament  as  prelates  ;  and  that  their 
character  makes  a  clear  case  in  favor  of  Episcopacy.  He 
appears  to  satisfy  himself,  and  evidently  expects  to  satisfy  his 
readers,  with  such  reasoning  as  the  following.  We  do  not  pro- 
fess to  give  his  exact  language  in  the  following  sentences  ;  but 
what,  according  to  our  perception,  is  the  real  force  of  his  state- 
ment.    "  It  cannot  be  proved  that  the  Apostle,  when  he  speaks  of 

*  The  word  Tlpia^vrtpiov  occurs  hut  iliree  times  in  the  New  Testament,  viz.  in 
Luke  xxii.  66.  and  in  Acts  xxii.  5.  In  eacli  of  tliese  cases  it  is  Impo^^sil!le  to  look  at 
the  original  without  perceiving-,  in  a  moment,  tiiat  it  refers  to  a  bench  or  college  of 
elders.  The  third  example  of  its  occurrence  is  in  the 'case  before  us;  where  we 
think  the  saine  tiling  is  equally  evident. 


216  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

*lhe  hands  of  the  preshytery'  being  laid  on  Timothy,  refers  to 
his  ordination  at  all.  It  is,  perhaps,  more  probable  that  it  refers 
to  his  being  set  apart  to  a  special  and  temporary  service:  or  it 
may  he  understood  to  mean,  (if  it  does  refer  to  his  ordination,) 
that  he  was  set  apart,  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  to  'the  pres- 
bijterate,'  that  is  to  the  office  of  presbyter.  Yet,  even  if  this  be 
supposed,  as  the  title  of  presbyter,  as  used  in  the  New  Testament, 
means  any  thing  and  every  thing  in  ecclesiastical  office,  it  may 
be  here  construed  to  mean  something  higher  than  a  mere  pres- 
byter, strictly  speaking;  therefore  there  is  at  least  as  much 
evidence  that  it  means  a  prelate  as  a  pr'esbyter.  Besides,  for  any 
thing  we  know  to  the  contrary,  the  '  presbytery '  which  officiated 
on  this  occasion  'way  have  consisted  of  apostles  only,  or  of  one 
or  more  apostles  joined  with  others;'  as  the  Apostle  speaks,  in 
another  place,  of  having  laid  his  own  hands  on  Timothy.  If 
this  be  so,  it  cannot,  of  course,  be  claimed  as  a  Presbyterian,  but 
was  an  apostolic  ordination.  We  may  be  considered,  then,  as 
having  proved,  that  presbyters  alone  did  not  perform  the  ordina- 
tion, granting  the  transaction  to  have  been  one;  but  that  an 
apostle  actually  belonged,  or  else  was  added  for  this  purpose,  to 
the  body  called  a  '  presbytery.'  It  is  also  worthy  of  notice  that 
St.  Paul  makes  the  following  distinction  in  regard  to  his  own 
agency  and  that  of  others  in  this  supposed  ordination,  '  by  the 
putting  on  of  my  hands'  —  *with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  presbytery.'  Such  a  distinction  may  justly  be  regarded  as 
intimating,  that  the  virtue  of  the  ordaining  act  flowed  from 
Paul ;  while  the  presbytery,  or  the  rest  of  that  body,  if  he  were 
included  in  it,  expressed  only  consent.  On  the  whole,  the 
language  here  used  requires  us  to  believe  that  a  minister  of 
higher  rank  than  an  ordinary  presbyter  was  present  and  officiated 
in  this  ordination  —  or  what  is  said  to  be  the  ordination  of 
Timothy.  At  any  rate  the  Episcopal  theory  is  at  least  as  good 
a  key  as  that  of  parity  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  '  presbytery ; ' 
and  considering  the  above  distinction  of  '6y'  and  '"with,^  onr 
theory  is  obviously  the  better  of  the  two."  See  pages  18-33. 
In  short  this  wonderful  jingle  of  words,  denominated  argument, 
when  brought  into  a  narrower  compass,  is  to  the  following 
effiict — "  It  is  doubtful  whether  either  of  these  famous  passages 
refers  to  the  ordination  of  Timothy  or  not.  //^either  or  both 
have  such  a  reference,  they  admit  of  an  interpretation  quite 
as  favorable  to  prelacy  as  to  parity ;  therefore,  as  some  other 
passages  of  Scripture  seem  to  wear  an  aspect  more  favorable  to 
prelacy  than  parity,  we  are  bound  to  interpret  these,  which  are 
acknowledged  to  be  still  more  doubtful,  in  the  same  way.'''' 
Though  these  are  not  the  ipsissima  verba  of  our  author,  they 
really  present  no  caricature  of  his  mode  of  reasoning.  We 
verily  think  tiiat  inferences  so  perfectly  inconsequential  and 
unwarranted  would  be  driven  from  any  enlightened  and  impar- 
tial tribunal  on  earth,  as  unworthy  of  an  answer. 

Our  author  next  attempts  to  establish,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 


TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  217 

that  Timothy  was  an  Episcopal  bisliop  or  prelate  at  Ephesus. 
This  he  endeavors  to  make  out  in  the  following  manner.  He 
first  recites  the  charge  which  the  Apostle  Paul  gives  to  the 
elders  of  Ephesus,  with  whom  he  had  an  interview  at  Milefri^^ 
(Acts  XX.)  He  gathers  from  this  charge  the  amount  of  eccle- 
siastical power  conmiitted  to  these  elders,  and  exercised  by  them. 
He  then  goes  over  the  epistles  lo  Timothy ;  and  thinking  that 
he  perceives  larger  powers  and  a  higher  authority  intrusted  to 
Timothy  than  lo  the  elders,  he  confidently  infers  that  Timothy 
was  a  minister  of  superior  rank  to  the  elders;  in  other  words,  a 
prelate.  We  consider  all  his  reasoning  on  this  subject  as 
entirely  without  force,  or  even  plausibility  ;  and  we  are  per- 
suaded all  impartial  readers  will  make  the  same  estimate,  after 
attentively  weighing  the  following  considerations. 

1.  We  might  have  expected  great  diversity  in  the  mode  of 
address  in  these  two  cases,  because  the  circumstances  of  the 
persons  addressed  were  essentially  different.  The  elders  of 
Ephesus  were  the  officers  of  an  organized  and  regular  church; 
and  were  charged  simply  with  carrying  forward  the  affairs  of  a 
collected  and  officered  flock.  Whereas  Timothy  was  obviously 
sent  on  a  temporary  mission  to  Ephesus,  with  a  special  charge 
to  rectify  disorders,  to  correct  abuses,  and  to  convey,  imme- 
diately from  the  Apostles,  a  variety  of  special  instructions, 
respecting  the  doctrine,  the  worship,  and  the  officers  of  that 
church.  Surely  these  circumstances  will  abundantly  account 
for  the  peculiar  manner  in  which  Timothy  is  instructed  and 
exhorted,  and  the  special  powers  vested  in  him  for  discharg- 
ing the  duties  of  this  arduous  mission.  Who  would  expect  to 
find  the  officers  of  a  regular  church  addressed  in  the  same  man- 
ner with  an  individual  "evangelist"  sent  on  a  critical  mission 
lo  the  same  church  in  a  state  of  agitation  and  disorder? 

2.  The  address  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  when  the  Apostle 
met  them  at  Miletus,  is  sufficient,  of  itself,  to  destroy  the  Epis- 
copal claim.  We  will  not  stop  to  inquire  whether  this  inter- 
view at  Miletus  took  place  before  or  after  the  date  of  the  first 
epistle  to  Timothy.  We  care  not  which  alternative  is  adopted, 
so  far  as  our  argument  is  concerned.  The  opinion  of  many 
learned  men  is,  that  the  interview  recorded  in  Acts  xx.  occurred 
six  or  seven  years  prior  to  the  date  of  the  epistle.  This  seems 
to  be  Bishop  Onderdonk's  opinion,  and  we  are  content  to 
assume  it  as  correct.  Now  if  it  were  so,  we  have  the  spectacle 
—  strange  and  inexplicable  on  Episcopal  grounds — the  specta- 
cle of  an  inspired  apostle  solemnly  addressing  the  elders  of  an 
important  church,  where  the  apostle  himself  had  labored  for 
three  years;  reminding  them  of  iheir  duties;  exhorting  them  to 
fidelity  ;  and  formally  committinar  to  them  the  rule  and  disci- 
pline, as  well  as  the  instruction  of  the  flock ;  and  all  this, 
without  so  much  as  alluding  to  an  ecclesiastical  superior.  If 
we  understand  our  author,  he  supposes  that,  at  this  lime,  there 
was  710  prelate  at  Ephesus,  Timothy  not  having  been  yet  sent 

19 


■2-18  REVIEW — EnSCOPACY 

thither.  Be  it  so.  Is  it  not  passing  strange,  then,  tliat  the 
Apostle  in  addressing  tliem  sliould  not  allude  to  this  defect  in 
their  ecclesiastical  situation ;  that  he  should  not  sympathize 
Avith  them  in  regard  to  it ;  and  promise,  or  at  least,  hint  some- 
thing about  the  future  supply  of  this  defect  —  a  defect,  on 
Episcopal  principles,  so  essential  ?  iNot  a  word  like  this,  how- 
ever, IS  found.  On  the  contrary,  the  Apostle  solemnly  commits 
the  whole  inspection  and  rule  of  the  church  to  these  elders 
themselves,  and  distinctly  calls  them  bishops.  "  Take  heed," 
says  lie,  "  to  yourselves,  and  to  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  has  made  you  overseers,  (in  the  original  tmaKoituvi)  bishops, 
to  feed  (the  original  here  signifies  to  rule  as  well  as  to  Jeed)  the 
Church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood." 
In  short,  he  makes  no  allusion  to  any  higher  authority  llian 
that  which  he  charges  them  to  exercise  On  this  occiision 
Timothy  himself  seems  to  have  been  present,  Acts  xx.  4,  5. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  suppose  that  the  first  epistle  to 
Timothy  was  written  before  the  interview  at  Miletus,  and  tiiat 
Timothy,  or  any  other  person,  was  then  the  preialical  bishop  of 
the  church  of  Ephesus,  llie  fair  presumption  against  the  Ej;is- 
copal  claim  becomes  still  stronger.  Can  it  be  imagined,  on 
Episcopal  principles,  thai  Paul  would  have  addressed  these 
elders,  in  the  presence  of  their  diocesan,  or  while  he  was  living, 
if  not  present,  and  would  havecommiiled  the  '■  oversight"  of  the 
flock  entirely  to  them,  without  sp  much  as  hinting  that  they 
owed  any  subjection  or  reverence  to  him,  or  to  any  person  of 
superior  rank?  It  is  impossible.  This  fact  alone  does  not 
merely  render  the  Episcopal  claim  improbable ;  it  destroys  ii-, 
unless  we  suppose  that  the  xAposlle  expressly  intended  to  deceive 
the  elders  of  Ephesus,  or  to  insult  their  diocesan,  or  that  he 
forgot — what  no  modern  Episcopalian  ever  forgets — the  dignity 
and  prerogative  of  the  prelate. 

.3.  It  is  nowhere  said,  or  hinted  in  Scripture,  that  Timothy 
ever  was  bishop  of  Ephesus,  or  'J'itus  of  Crete.  That  is,  there 
is  no  evidence  whatever  in  the  inspired  history,  that  these  men, 
or  either  of  them,  ever  had  a  fixt^d  pastoral  charge,  of  many 
months',  much  less  years',  continuance,  in  the  places  in  which 
they  are  alleged  to  have  been  permanently  located  ;  or  that  they 
ever  sustained  any  title,  or  enjoyed  any  authority,  which 
marked  a  preialical  cliar.icler.  We  utterly  deny  that  they  ever 
did  ;  and  we  are  perfectly  sure  that  it  never  has  been,  or  can  be, 
proved  from  Scripture.  That  one  of  thein  was  at  Ephesus,  and 
the  other  at  Crete,  on  a  special  emergency,  and  for  a  short 
lime,  we  are,  indeed,  distinctly  informed.  But  this  is  all  that 
appears.  Timothy  is  represented  as  travelling  from  place  to 
place  conlinuaily ',  and  the  same  was  probably  the  case  with 
Tiius.  The  very  epistles  themselves  which  were  directed  to 
those  missionaries  contain  evidence  that,  as  they  had  been 
recently  sent  to  Ephesus  and  Crete,  so  they  were  soon  to  depart 
and  go  elsewhere.     The  postscript  to  ihe  second  epistle  to 


TESTED    BY   SCRIPTDRE.  219 

Timothy,  and  the  epistle  to  Titus,  wliich  speak  of  their  being 
"  bishops,"  are  known  to  be  spurious ;  that  is,  it  is  certain  that 
they  make  no  part  of  the  authorized  text,  and  that  they  were 
interpolated  long  after  the  apostolic  age.  Of  course,  they  have 
nothing  to  do  with  this  inquiry.  But,  though  neither  of  these 
ministers  is  said  in  Scripture  to  liave  been  a  "bishop,"'  in  the 
Episcopal  sense  of  that  word,  Timothy  is  expressly  styled  by 
the  Apostle  an  evangelist,  (2  Tim.  iv.  5,)  and  the  probability  is 
that  Titus  bore  the  same  character.  If  it  be  asked,  What  was 
the  nature  of  the  evangelisVs  ofRce  ?  We  answer,  in  genera], 
he  was  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel ;  —  a  hearer  of  the  Gospel  to 
those  who  had  it  not.  But  if  tiie  inquiry  be,  What  was  the 
nature  of  this  office  in  the  early  Church  ?  let  Eusebius  answer. 
He  says,  "Very  many  of  the  disciples  of  that  day  travelled 
abroad,  and  performed  the  wwk  of  evangelists,  ardently  ambi- 
tious of  preaching  Christ  to  those  who  were  yet  wholly  unac- 
quainted with  the  doctrine  of  faith,  and  to  deliver  to  them  the 
Scripture  of  the  divine  gospels.  These  having  merely  laid  the 
foundations  of  the  faith,  and  ordained  other  pastors,  committed 
to  tliem  the  cultivation  of  the  churches  newly  planted  ;  while 
they  themselves,  supported  by  the  grace  and  co-operation  of 
God,  proceeded  to  other  countries  and  nations."  (lib.  iii.  cap.  37.) 
Bishop  Onderdonk,  indeed,  endeavors  to  obviate  the  inference 
drawn  from  the  fact  that  Timothy  is  called  an  evangelist; 
but  without  the  smallest  success.  The  considerations  which 
lie  urges  for  refuting  it,  are  chiefly  the  following.  [1.]  "If 
Timothy  is  called  an  evangelist,  he  is  also  called  an  apostle." 
This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  a  mistake  ,-  he  is  nowhere  so  called 
in  Scripture.  [2.]  "  It  does  not  a[)pear  that  evangelists,,  as 
such,  had  any  particular  rank  in  the  ministry.  Philip,  the 
deacon,  was  an  evangelist;  and  in  Ephes.  iv.  11,  evangeliais  are 
put  after  prophets."  True,  in  the  apostolic  age,  they  had  better 
Avork  to  do,  than  to  contend  about  the  adjustment  of  titles,  pre- 
cedence, and  rank  in  the  sacred  oflSce.  But  one  thing  is  certain, 
that  "evangelists"  are  distinguished  from  "apostles"  with  a 
distinctness  which  precludes  the  possibility  of  our  considering 
them  as  the  same.  [3.}  "  If  Timothy  were  an  evangelist,  there 
is  no  proof  that  Titus,  and  the  'angels'  of  the  seven  churches 
were  evangelists."  This  there  is  much  reason  to  believe  is 
a  mistake.  It  is  highly  probable  they  were.  At  any  rate,  we 
are  very  sure  it  cannot  be  made  to  appear  that  they  were  not. 
[4.]  "Eusebius  probably  refers  to  bishops,  when  he  speaks  of 
these  evangelists;  and  if  so,  then  Episcopacy  still  prevails," 
This  is,  again,  an  entire  mistake.  Eusebius  does,  indeed,  men- 
tion some  as  evangelists,  by  nar,ie,  who  are  said  to  have  been 
bishops.  Having  done  this,  he  goes  on  to  speak  of  "  many 
other  disciples"  of  thai  day,  "  as  going  abroad,  and  performing 
the  work  of  evangelists;"  and  to  these,  he  explicitly  informs 
IIS,  was  committed  the  Q)'daining  power.  His  mode  of  speak 
ing  precludes  the  possibility  of  tiYeir  being  bishops,  in  the  sftiisflt 


220  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

which  became  current  afterward  in  the  Church.  In  short,  the 
title  "evangelist"  is  found  but  three  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Onc-e  it  U  applied  to  Timothy;  once  to  Philip,  who  had 
been  one  of  the  seven  deacons  at  Jerusalem  ;  and  once  in 
Ephes.  iv.  11,  where  we  read- of  " apostles,  prophets,  evange- 
lists, pastors,  and  teachers."  This  is  conclusive  proof,  as  far 
as  scripiiiral  authority  goes,  that  the  title  has  no  reference 
to  prelacy. 

4.  There  is  nothing  represented  in  Scripture  as  enjoined  upon 
Timothy  and  Titus,  or  as  done  by  them,  which  is  not  perfectly 
consistent  with  Presbyterian  principle  and  practice.  Timothy 
was  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  Titus  to  Crete,  to  do  what  ? — To  cor- 
rect abuses  as  to  doctrine,  worsiiip  and  order ;  to  see  that  suita- 
ble persons  were  selected  and  set  apart  to  ecclesiastical  offices  ; 
and,  in  general,  to  "  set  in  order  the  things  that  were  wanting." 
It  is  well  known  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  country 
has  been  in  the  constant  practice,  for  more  than  half  a  century, 
of  sending  out  evangelists — ^just  such  nien  as  Eusebius  describes 
— iiito  destitute  settlements  to  organize  churches,  ordain  elders 
and  deacons,  correct  irregularities,  and  "set  in  order,"  as  far  as 
possible,  every  thing  that  may  be  necessary  for  Christian  edifi- 
cation. Now,  we  ask.  Why  may  not  Timothy  and  Titus  have 
been  just  such  Presbyterian  evangelists?  There  is  not  a  tittle, 
either  of  fact  or  expression,  in  liie  whole  statement  respecting 
them,  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  ;  nay,  we  have 
no  doubt  that  this  was  the  real  fact.  It  will  avail  nothing  with 
us  to  reply,  as  our  author,  like  ail  his  predecessors,  doubtless 
will  reply — that  this  cannot  be,  because  none  but  prelates  ever 
had  the  power  of  ordaining.  Shall  we  never  have  done  with 
this  constant  begsting  of  the  whole  question  in  dispute?  We 
fearlessly  assert  tijai  there  is  not  a  syllable  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  even  distantly  intii/iates,  that  eith-sr  Timothy  or 
Titus  performed  the  work  enjoined  upon  them  rather  as  prelates 
than  as  "  evangelists;"  and  that  there  is  just  as  much  reason  to 
assert  that  all  the  itinerant  missionaries  sent  out  annually  by  the 
Presbyterian  Church  into  frontier  seitlemenis,  are  prelates,  as 
from  any  thing  that  is  said  in  the  New  Testament,  to  ascribe 
such  a  superior  rank  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  Perhaps  it  will  be 
said,  that,  although  Presbyterian  missionaries  are  always  em- 
powered to  organize  churches,  and  to  ordain  ruling  elders  and 
deacons,  they  are  never  authorized,  sinsjly,  to  ordain  teaching 
elders,  or  ministers  of  the  Gospel.  This  is,  no  doubt,  true. 
Yet  this  is  only  an  ecclesiastical  regulation,  not  a  necessary  or 
essential  law  of  Christ's  house.  In  our  Church,  according  to 
her  present  constitution,  three  ordainers  must  always  be  present, 
and  assist  in  a  reoular  ordination.  But  there  is  quite  as  regular 
a  Presbyterian  Church  in  our  country,  in  which  two  ordainers 
are  sufficient.  And  a  third,  equally  regular,  also  in  our  country, 
according  to  whose  foi-m  of  ordination,  a  single  oi'dainer  is  suf- 
ficient to  complete  a  regular  investiture  with  the  sacred  office* 


TESTED    BY   SCRIPTDRE.  221? 

We  may  suppose,  llien,  that  Timothy  and.  Titus  might  have 
been  alone  charged  with  the  ordaining  power,  in  the  pecnliar 
circumstances  in  which  they  acted,  and  might  have  exercised 
it  accordingly,  without  the  least  departure  from  Presbyterian 
principle. 

But  did  either  Timothy  or  Titus  ever,  in  a  single  instance, 
perform  the  work  of  ordination  aloiiel  This  is  constantly 
taken  lor  granted  by  Episcopalians;  and  the  establishment  of 
tiie  alleged  fact  is  essential  to  their  cause.  For  if  they  only 
ordained  in  company  with  others,  or  as  members,  (perliaps  the 
presiding  members)  of  their  respective  presbyteries,  then  we 
have,  in  each  case,  a  simple  specimen  of  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion. But  it  is  assumed  by  Episcopalians  that  they  ordained 
alonCy  without  a  shadow  of  proof,  and  against  all  probability. 
Tiie  question,  whether  there  were  or  not,  atEphesus  and  Crete, 
a  body  of  presbyters,  at  this  time,  who  mighi,  upon  Presbyte- 
rian principles,  have  officiated  in  the  work  of  ordination,  will 
here  be  left  out  of  view.  Archbishop  Potter  delivers  it  as  his 
opinion,  that  in  Crete,  at  least,  there  were  none.  But  we  shall 
forbear  to  canvass  this  question,  as  not  essential  to  the  argument 
of  parity,  however  it  may  be  ansv/ered.  Let  this  have  been  as 
it  may;  there  is  every  reason  t-o  suppose  that  Timothy  and 
Titus  were  assisted  in  every  ordination  by  others.  We  know 
that  Mark  was  with  Timothy;  and  that  Zenas  and  Apollos  were 
with  Titus.  Who  can  tell  but  that  these  ecclesiastical  compa- 
nions took  part  in  every  ordination?  We  cannot  positively 
assert  that|they  did;  but  it  would  be  still  more  presumptuous 
to  assert,  since  they  were  on  the  spot,  that  they  did  not.  And 
yet,  unless  the  patrons  of  Episcopacy  can  prove  that  they  took 
no  part,  and  that  the  "evangelists"  ordained  alone,  their  whole 
argument,  drawn  from  this  case,  fulls  to  the  ground. 

Nor  does  it  affect  our  reasoning  to  allege,  that  the  Apostle's 
language,  through  the  greater  part  of  the  epistles  to  Timothy 
and  Titus,  is  personal;  —  that  is,  the  epistles  are  addressed  to 
them  individually.  For  example,  such  language  as  the  follow- 
ing frequently  occurs: — "This  charge  I  commit  unto  thee,  son 
Timothy  ;" — '^ These  things  write  I  unto  thee,  that  thou  might- 
est  know  how  to  behave  thyself  in  the  house  of  God  ;" — "that 
ihoiif  mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine;" 
— "  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,"  &c.  This  language  mani- 
festly avails  nothing  to  the  cause  of  prelacy  ;  for,  1.  As  tliese 
men  went  to  Ephesus  and  Crete  as  a  kind  of  special  envoys, 
immediately  from  the  Apostle,  it  was  natural  that  the  system  of 
instructions  should  be  addressed  to  them  personally;  for  in  the 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed,  they  were  to  be  the 
chief  counsellors  and  guides  in  every  thing  that  was  done.  2.  A 
Presbyterian  ordination  never  occurs  without  addressing  to  the 
newly  ordained  minister  language  of  precisely  the  same  import  ;- 
or  rather,  without  exhorting  him  in  the  very  words  of  Paul  to 
Timothy.  But  no  one  ever  dreams  that  this  language  is  incoa- 
19* 


22^^  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

sistent  with  purity.  For,  although  no  one  of  our  ministers  can 
regularly  ordain  alone;  yet  as  each  possesses  the  ordaining^ 
power,  it  is  proper  that  each  should  receive  a  separate  and 
distinct  charge.  3.  If  tliis  argument  proves  any  tiling,  it  will 
prove  too  much,  for  it  will  prove  that  these  evangelists  alone 
were  empowered  to  preach  and  prai/  in  the  respective  places  to 
which  they  were  sent  to  minister,  for  charges  in  relation  to 
these  points  are  given  to  them  in  the  same  personal  style. 
4.  No  evangelist  is  ever  sent  forth  by  our  Church  for  the  purpose 
of  organizing  and  ''  setting  in  order"  churches,  without  bearing 
with  him  a  body  of  special  instructions,  always  drawn  up  in 
the  form  of  a  letter,  and,  of  course,  addressed  to  him  personally. 
Are  all  these  proofs  that  our  evangelists  are  prelates? 

In  closing  our  remaiks  on  the  alleged  prelatical  character  of 
Timothy  and  Titus,  we  have  one  circumstance  to  mention, 
which  we  cannot  help  regarding  as  decisive.  Tlie  circumstance 
is  this.  Bishop  Onderdonk,  as  we  have  seen,  explicitly  acknow- 
ledges that — "  all  that  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  concern- 
ing bishops  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining  to  the  "  middle 
grade,"  i.  e.  to  "  presbyters,"  and  never  to  prelates.  In  other 
words,  he  acknowledges  that  the  title  of  "  bishop  "  is,  in  no  case, 
in  the  New  Testament,  used  to  designate  a  minister  of  superior 
rank;  but  always  to  designate  ordinary  pastors.  Of  course,  the 
term  bishop,  as  found  in  the  eoislles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  has 
no  reference  to  prelates.  Now,  if  this  be  so,  then  we  have  no 
allusion  whatever,  in  these  episiles,  to  any  such  superior  officer. 
Among  all  the  counsels  and  laws  intended  to  be  left  on  perma- 
nent record,  for  the  guidance  of  Christians  in  all  ages,  there  is 
not  the  remotest  hint  pointing  to  such  an  officer.  Presbyters, 
or  ordinary  pastors,  ruling  elders  and  deacons,  are  all  plainly 
pointed  out,  and  the  proper  qualifications  and  duties  of  each 
carefully  specified.  But  not  a  syllable  is  said  to  them  about 
'prelates^  their  rights,  prerogatives,  duties,  or  mode  of  investiture. 
They  are  never  even  once  reminded  that  it  is  their  duty  to  be 
docile  and  obedient  to  their  proper  diocesan.  Assuming  Presby- 
terian principles,  this  is  perfectly  natural — ^.jnst  what  might  have 
been  expected.  If  no  such  officer  existed,  of  course  he  could  not 
be  recognised  or  described.  But,  on  Episcopal  principles,  it 
appears  to  us  utterly  unaccountable.  Or  rather,  it  affords,  in  our 
opinion,  conclusive  proof  that  no  such  officer  of  superior  rank 
was  then  known  in  the  Church,  or  intended  to  be  established  as 
a  permanent  order. 

We  have  only  to  notice  one  leading  argument  more  which 
Bishop  Onderdonk  employs  to  make  out  Episcopacy  from 
Scripture;  and  that  is  the  argument  drawn  from  the  "angels" 
of  the  seven  Asiatic  churches.  In  reference  to  these  he  reasons 
thus.  "Each  of  these  churches  is  addressed,  not  through  its 
clergy  at  large,  but  through  its  '  angel,'  or  chief  officer.  This 
'  angel'  is  addressed  personallj^,  and  in  a  manner  which  implies 
much  power  and  responsibility  in  his  pastoral  charge:  the  sin- 


TESTED   BY  SCRIPTURE.  2z^ 

gular  number  is  used  in  speaking  to  him.  This  individual  is,  in 
each  case,  identified  wjili  his  church,  and  his  church  wilh  him. 
Ergo  these  'angels'  were  prelates." 

Now,  we  ask.  What  are  all  these  facts  to  our  author's  argu- 
ments? What  do  they  prove?  Why  may  not  these  "  angels" 
have  been  Presbyterian  pastors,  just  as  well  as  Episcopal 
bishops?  Every  word  that  is  said  of  ihem  applies  quite  as 
appropriately  and  strictly  to  the  former  as  to  the  latier.  The 
term  "angel,"  in  itself,  decides  nothing.  It  simply  signifies  a 
"  messenger."  As  far  as  we  know  iis  origin,  it  was  derived 
from  the  Jewish  synagogue;  every  particular  synagogue  having 
been  furnished  wilh  an  officer  bearing  this  title,  and  that  officer, 
it  is  well  known,  was  not  a  prelate.  Some  of  the  most  learned 
Episcopal  writers,  however,  have  been  of  the  opinion,  that  the 
term  '"angel"  is  a  figurative  expression,  intended  to  point  out 
the  collective  ministry  in  those  churches  respectively  :  and 
hence  in  addressing  the  angel  of  the  church  in  Smyrna,  it  is 
said,  ^^  Some  of  you  I  will  cast  into  prison,"  &c.  Nor  can  we 
infer  any  thing  from  the  addresses  made,  or  the  powers  assigned 
to  these  "angels."  They  agree  just  as  well  with  parochial 
bishops,  or  pastors,  as  wilh  prelates.  And  accordingly,  it  is 
notorious  that  some  of  the  most  learned  and  able  writers  on  the 
Episcopal  side  in  this  controversy,  have  given  up  the  argument 
drawn  from  the  apocalyptic  '"angels,"  as  affording  no  real 
support  to  the  claim  of  prelacy. 

Besides,  there  is  another  difficulty  respecting  these  "  angels" 
of  the  seven  churches,  when  claimed  as  prelates.  Bishop  Onder- 
donk's  theory  is,  that  the  prelates  of  the  Church  in  the  apostolic 
age,  were  never  called  bishops,  but  apostles ;  and  that  after  the 
Apostles'  days,  these  successors  to  the  pre-eminent  a|iostolical 
powers  began  to  be  styled  bishops.  Now,  here,  according  lo  our 
author,  we  have  a  title  which  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other; 
and  which  appears,  as  a  ministerial  title,  in  no  other  part  of 
Scripture.  It  will  not  do  to  reply,  that  as  all  the  apostles  except- 
ing John,  who  was  made  the  medium  of  address  on  this  occasion, 
had  passed  away,  we  may  suppose  that  the  appointment  of 
their  prelatical  successors  had  newly  commenced,  and  that 
these  "angels"  are  a  specimen.  Why  not,  then,  call  them 
either  apostles  or  bishops!  Why  give  them  a  title  intended  to 
be  applied,  as  it  would  seem,  in  but  one  case,  and  then  for  ever 
dropped  ?  We  surely  might  have  expected  some  intelligible 
intimation  of  what  was  inlended  concerning  so  great  a  subject 
as  the  names  and  "orders  of  clergy,"  before  the  sacred  canon 
was  finally  closed  ;  especially  as  the  transition  period  from  the 
Apostles  to  their  "surcessors"  had  now  come.  But  no;  not  a 
word.  All  is  still  left  in  doubt  and  obscurity.  And  the  truth  is,, 
ihe  aspect  and  character  of  these  addresses  themselves  do  not 
very  well  correspond  with  the  case  of  recently  appointed 
officers.  In  referfeuce  to  at  least  two  of  them,  there  are  indica- 
tions of  a  long  preceding  incumbency  in  office,  and  of  sinking 


224  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

down  into  lukewarmness  and  sloth.  It  is  by  no  means  likely 
that,  under  the  eye  of  inspired  apostles,  men  already  in  this 
stale  of  moral  depression  would  have  been  selected  to  preside 
over  churches.  In  short,  the  more  carefully  we  examine  the 
case  of  these  "  angels,"  the  more  all  dreams  of  their  affording 
support  to  prelacy  are  dissipated. 

Such  is  a  cursory  view  of  the  arguments  produced  from 
Scripture,  by  Bishop  Onderkonk,  in  support  of  the  Episcopal 
claim.  Our  oiily  wonder  is,  tliat  he  does  not  see  them  to  be, 
both  in  their  individual  import  and  i-n  their  combined  charac- 
ter, destituie  of  even  th.e  semblance  of  force.  At  every  step  in 
his  progress,  unless  we  are  deceived,  he  has  totally  and  mani- 
festly failed.  His  method  of  reasoning,  from  the  beginning  to 
the  "end  of  his  pamphlet,  is  of  the  following  sort — "Tliis  fact 
adnvts  of  an  Episcopal  construction  ;  at  any  rate,  it  cannot  be 
'proved  that  its  import  is  in  favor  of  parity.  "We  may,  tlierefore, 
take  for  granted,  or  at  least  it  will  not  be  questioned^  that  its 
meaning  is  more  favorable  to  Episcopacy  than  to  parity.  We 
are  warranted,  then,  in  assuming  this  point  as  established.  To 
us  the  proof  appears  absolute  ;  but  it  is  enough  for  a  rightly  dis- 
posed mind  that  it  only  preponderate.  For,  let  it  not  be  forgot- 
ten, that  as  it  cannot  be  proved^  it  ought  not  to  be  allowed^  that 
any  but  those  who  held  the  apostolical  or  Episcopal  office, 
superior  to  that  of  mere  presbyters,  either  performed  the  ordi- 
nations mentioned  in  Scripture,  or  are  there  said  to  have  the 
right  to  perform  such  acts."  In  such  misnamed  reasoning  as 
this  our  author  abounds;  and  he  so  far  deceives  himself — 
(which  we   have  no  doubt  he  does  sincerely) — as  to  call  it 

DEMONSTRATION  ! 

But  has  he  really  proved  any  one  of  those  points  which  are 
not  merely  important,  but  even  essential  to  the  establishment  of 
his  claim  ?  Let  us,  for  a  moment,  look  back  and  recapitulate. 
Has  \\e  proved  that  the  ordaining  power  was  confined  to  the 
Apostles  while  they  lived  1  He  certainly  has  not.  The  con- 
trary most  manifestly  appears.  In  his  efforts  to  establish  this 
point,  has  he  proved  that  Timothy,  Barnabas  and  others  were 
apostles  in  the  official  sense  of  that  title,  because  they  un- 
doubtedly ordained  ?  Not  at  all.  But  in  attempting  it,  he  has 
mangled  and  perverted  Scripture,  and  entirely  misapprehended 
the  apostolic  character.  Has  he  been  able  to  show  from 
Scripture  that  the  Apostles,  in  their  peculiar  and  preeminent 
character,  had  successors;  and  that  these  successors  were  the 
bishops?  He  has  not  even  pretended,  so  far  as  we  recollect,  to 
produce  a  single  scripture  which  gives  the  remotest  counte- 
nance to  either  of  these  positions.  Has  he  proved,  or  rendered 
even  probable,  that  Timothy  or  Titus  was  sent  to  Ephesus  or 
Crete,  not  on  a  temporary  and  extraordinary  mission,  but  to 
occupy  a  fixed  and  permanent  pastoral  charge?  He  has  not; 
nor  can  he  do  so.  For,  from  the  scripturtil  account  of  the 
roinistry  of  those  itinerants,  it  is  by  no  means  likely  that  tliey 


TESTED   BY    SCRIPTURE.  225 

were  in  either  of  those  places  more  than  a  few  months,  or  per- 
haps, weeks.  Has  he  proved  that  the  second  epistle  to  Timo- 
thy was  addressed  to  him  at  Ephesus  at  all  ?  He  has  not  j  and 
some  of  the  most  learned  commentators  have  thought  it  alto- 
gether improbable.  Has  he  given  us  the  least  proof  that  either 
Timothy  or  Titus  went  to  Ephesus  or  Crete  in  any  higher 
character  than  that  of  simple  "  evangelists,"  sent  on  a  special 
mission,  and  charged  for  that  purpose  with  special  powers? 
By  no  means.  The  whole  statement  concerning  them  agrees 
far  belter  with  parity  than  with  prelacy ;  nor  is  there  a  single 
fact  or  hint  in  the  history  of  either  which  necessarily,  or  even 
probably,  implies  the  latter.  Has  he  shown  that  before  those 
missionaries  went  to  Ephesus  and  Crete  there  were  teaching 
presbyters  or  pastors  residing  in  both  those  places,  who  might. 
on  Presbyterian  principles,  have  performed  the  work  of  ordina- 
tion? Or  has  he  proved  that  either  Timothy  or  Titus  ever 
performed  a  single  ordination  alone?  He  has  not  produced  the 
least  proof  of  either,  nor  can  he  do  it.  Has  he  proved,  or  ap- 
proached to  the  proof,  that  the  "  angels"  of  the  seven  churches 
were  prelates?  Not  at  all.  Neither  their  name,  nor  any  facts 
alluded  to  in  their  case,  give  the  least  intimation  that  they  bore 
this  character.  The  same  may  be  said  of  every  fact  and  princi- 
ple peculiar  to  prelacy  which  he  has  attempted  to  establish. 
Instead  of  producing  direct  and  palpable  scriptural  testimony, 
he  has  been  compelled  to  resort  to  doubtful  conjecture,  circuit- 
ous inference,  and  remote  probability,  or  even  possibility.  No 
one  position  is  firmly  supported.  Even  if  he  had  been  able  to 
establish  every  one  of  the  points  above  referred  to  as  facts,  still 
his  main  object  would  have  been  far  from  being  gained.  He 
would  still  be  obliged  to  show,  from  Scripture,  that  all  this  was 
intended  to  be  a  permanent  arrangement.  This  he  has  not 
done.  This,  we  are  very  sure,  he  cannot  do.  His  premises 
and  his  conclusion  are  alike  unsound. 

The  last  remark  brings  again  to  our  view  a  most  singular  part 
of  Bishop  Onderdonk's  argument,  to  which  we  before  alluded, 
but  which  deserves  a  more  pointed  notice.  He  grants,  (p.  12,)  as 
we  haVe  seen,  that  the  title  of  "  bisho[),"  in  the  New  Testament, 
is  every  where  applied  to  ordinary  pastors  ;  and  that  it  was 
after  the  apostolic  age  that  the  title  of  "  bishop"  was  taken  from 
the  "second  order  of  clergy,  and  appropriated  to  the  first." 
When  we  came  to  this  point  in  his  argument,  we  felt  curious  to 
know  what  scripture  he  would  produce  to  attest  this  last  point, 
viz.  that  "  after  the  apostolic  age,  the  title  of  '  bishop'  was  taken 
from  the  second  order,  and  appropriated  to  tlie  first."  But,  at 
this  principal  link  in  his  chain  of  proof,  he  abandons  his  pro- 
fessed ground.  "As  we  learn,"  says  he — from  whom?  from  any 
inspired  loriler 7 — n'ot  at  all — "  as  we  learn  from  Theodoret,  one 
of  the  fathers!"  He  does  not  pretend  to  find  the  slightest 
warrant  in  the  Bible  for  this  essential  part  of  his  argument. 
How  are  we  to  account  for  this?    We  thought  we  had  been 


226  REVIEW — EPISCOPACY 

called  to  investigate  the  claim  of  Episcopacy  as  "tested  by 
scripture:"  and  here,  for  an  essential  link  in  the  chain  of  proof, 
we  are  referred  to  a  writer  in  the  fifth  ceniurij!  We  reject  this 
proof  for  several  reasons:  1.  Because  it  is  not  Scripture,  and 
with  that  alone  we  have  to  do  al  present.  2.  Because  if  this 
change  of  title  had  the  sanction  of  Divine  appointment,  and  if 
the  rank  which  it  represents  had  been  regarded  as  a  matter  of 
so  much  importance  as  modern  prelatists  annex  to  it,  we  might, 
surely,  expect  to  find  in  the  New  Testament  some  intimation  of 
wiiat  was  to  take  place.  3.  Because  no  one  doubts  that,  in  the 
fifth  century,  when  Theodoret  lived,  prelacy  had  crept  into  the 
Church,  and  was  firmly  established  ;  and  that  the  language 
which  he  employs  fell  in  with  the  current  claims  and  practice 
of  his  day.  4.  Because,  if  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  is  to  settle 
this  point;  (against  which  we  enter  our  solemn  protest;  what 
cannot  be  found  in  the  Bible  is  no  law  for  Christians-;)  if  an 
appeal  must  be  made  to  the  fathers  at  all;  pray  let  us  go  to 
those  who  lived  nearest  to  "the  apostolic  age,"  and  who,  of 
course,  are  the  most  competent  witnesses  of  what  took  place 
immediately  after  that  age,  when  this  change  of  title  is  alleged 
by  our  autlior  to  have  been  brought  in.  Does  Clemens  Romaiius, 
does  Ignatius,  does  Polycarp,  say  any  thing  like  what  Theodoret 
is  brought  to  testify?  They  lived  at  the  very  time  when  this 
transfer  of  titles  is  alleged  to  have  taken  place.  Does  any  one 
of  them  speak  of  it?  Not  a  word.  But  they  say  very  much  of 
an  opposite  import.     Ignatius  says,  again  and  again,  that  the 

PRESBYTERS    SUCCEED    IN    THE   PLACE    OF    THE    APOSTLES,      ClCiineUS^. 

Avho  was  contemporary  wiih  the  Apostle  John,  speaks  familiatiy 
of  the  presbyters  in  his  day,  as  the  rulers  of  the  Church,  very 
mucii  in  the  language  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  Irenaeus,  who 
flourished  toward  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  repeatedly 
speaks  of  presbyters  as  being  successors  of  the  Apostles.  Surely 
the  representations  of  these  men,  though  not  constituting  our 
rule  either  of  faith  or  practice,  are  much  more  worthy  of  con- 
fidence than  the  language  of  those  who  lived  several  centuries 
afterward,  when  it  is  known  that  great  corruption,  growing  out 
of  ambition  and  worldliness,  had  found  its  way  into  the  Church, 
and  when  an  erroneous  nomenclature,  as  well  as  practice,  was 
notoriously  prevalent. 

Such  is  the  result  of  our  author's  appeal  to  the  "  test  of  Scrip- 
ture." If  he  has  proved  a  single  point  peculiar  to  the  Episcopal 
system,  from  the  New  Testament,  then  we  know  not  what  proof 
means.  Surely  if  the  inspired  writers  had  been  Episcopalians; 
and,  especially,  if  they  had  been  believers  in  its  fundamental 
importance,  as  well  as  in  its  Divine  appointment ;  they  could  not 
have  left  the  subject  in  their  writings — wriiings,  be  it  remem- 
b-red,  expressly  intended  to  guide  the  Churcli  to  the  end  of 
tim"  ;— tiiey  could  not,  we  repeat,  iiave  left  the  subject  in  so  lean 
and  doiibifiil  a  plight  as  it  would  appear  from  our  author's  state- 
ment.   Bishop  Onderdojik  has  evidently  examined  the  Scriptures 


TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  227 

With  th«  most  anxious  vigilance,  and  with  the  aid  of  the  best 
divines  of  his  Cliurch  who  have  lived  for  three  centuries;  and 
he  has  evidently  collected  every  fact,  hint  and  allusion  that  was 
capable  of  being  brought  to  bear  witness,  ever  so  minutely  or 
remotely,  in  favor  of  his  cause.  And  yet  the  fact  is,  that  every 
impartial  reader  must  see  that  he  has  not  been  able,  in  regard  to 
arry  one  point,  to  produce  a  single  scripture,  decided  and  "  home 
to  his  purpose."  Now,  if  Episcopacy  had  been  meant  to  be 
taught  in  Scripture,  as  the  only  authorized  model  of  church 
order;  and  if  the  New  Testament  had  been  intended  to  be  a 
sure  guide  in  this  matter;  can  any  reflecting  man  believe  that 
the  inspired  writers  would  have  written  as  they  have  done  in 
relation  to  ecclesiastical  order?  We  will  venture  to  say,  it  is 
impossible!  When  they  had  occasion  to  speak  so  frequently 
concerning  Christian  character  and  hope;  concerning  the  Church, 
its  nature,  foundation,  head,  laws,  ministers,  and  interests ;  it  is 
truly  marvellous,  if  they  had  thought  as  the  writer  of  this 
pamphlet  does,  that  they  should  not  have  told  us  something 
more  explicit  respecting  "orders  of  clergy;"  the  mischiefs  of 
"  parity ; "  the  danger  of  departure  from  the  regular  "  succession ; " 
and  the  fundamental  importance  of  contending  for  an  "author- 
ized priesthood."  Had  their  opinions  been  those  of  the  author 
of  this  Tract,  they  could  not  have  been  silent,  or  have  spoken 
doubtfully  respecting  these  points.  They  would  have  dwelt 
upon  them  in  every  connexion;  have  repeated  them  at  every 
turn ;  and  have  made  this  subject  clear,  whatever  else  was  left 
in  the  dark.  Now,  as  it  is  granted,  on  all  sides,  that  they  have 
NOT  DONE  this;  as  Episcopalians  themselves  acknowledge  that 
NO  ONE  of  the  inspired  writers  has  done  it,  or  is  at  ali  explicit 
on  the  subject;  it  is  as  plain  as  any  moral  demonstration  can  be, 
that  the  principles  and  claims  of  this  pamphlet  were  then 
unknown,  and,  consequently,  have  no  Divine  warrant. 


ANSWER 

TO    A 

REVIEW  OF  "EPISCOPACY  TESTED  BY  SCRIPTURE^" 

In  the  Biblical  Repertory  for  April,  1835. 


Some  people  are  prompt,   and  some  tardy;  the  same  with 
periodicals ;  and  the  Biblical  Repertory  is  of  the  latter  class — 
perhaps  with  good  reason.    By  the  Biblical  Repertory  we  mean, 
of  course,  the  author  of  the  Review  before  us.    He  informs  us 
that  "copy  after  copy"  of  '"Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture" 
was  sent  him,  from  about  the  time  of  its  earliest  appearance,  yet 
without  waking  the  energies  of  his  tardy  pen  ;  nay  without  being 
honored  with  the  perusal  of  more  than  "  a  fourth,  or  at  most,  a 
third  part  of  its  contents."    The  reason  was,  that  it  contained 
nothing  with  which  he  was  not  "  familiar."    At  length,  however, 
in  time  for  the  April  number  of  the  Repertory,  and  "  within 
twenty-four  hours"  of  the  moment  of  penning  his  third  para- 
graph, he  vouchsafes  it  "  a  cursory  perusal."    Why,  after  leaving 
it  so  long  unnoticed  and  unread,  say  some  four  years,  why  did 
the  reviewer  at  length  examine  its  pages,  and  even  bend  his 
powers  to  the  labor  of  a  reply?    He  informs  us  that  it  was 
because  "  the  voice  of  exultation  over  its  supposed  unanswerable 
character  seems  to  be,  in  the  Episcopal  camp,  waxing  louder  and 
louder,"  and  because  "  some  of  the  less  informed  of  [his]  friends 
may  misapprehend  the  reason  of  [his]  silence."     Only  the  "  less 
informed,"  be  it  noticed ;  the  Biblical  Repertory,  a'  thick  and 
handsome  Quarterly,  is  the  vehicle  of  communication  with  the 
"  less  informed  "  of  the  Presbyterians !    One  might  have  sup- 
posed that  the  columns  of  one  of  their  religious  newspapers 
would  be  the  more  appropriate  channel.     Mark  also  the  words, 
"misapprehend  the  reason  of  our  silence;"  the  silence  of  this 
individual  reviewer,  for  the  Tract  had  been  reviewed  a  year 
before,  in  the  Christian  Spectator.    Such  language,  under  such 
circumstances,  indicates  that  this  writer  understood  that  himself 
was  looked  to,  by  more  or  fewer  of  the  Christian  public,  whether 
"less"  or  better  "  informed,"  for  a  reply  to  this  Episcopal  essay. 
In  other  words,  while  the  reviewer,  for  himself,  deemed  the 
Tract,  for  four  years,  unworthy  of  notice,  there  were  those  whose 
judgment,   either   made  known  to  him  or  taken  for  granted, 
constrained   him   at  length  to  give   his  well-trained   faculties 
("familiar"  with  the  whole  subject)  to  the  task,   and  to  issue 
his  production  in  one  of  the  choicest  Presbyterian  periodicals. 
If  the  author  of  the  Tract  were  vain  of  it,  he  would  not  covet  a 
greater  compliment. 

20  c  229  ) 


230  ANSWER   TO   A    THIRD   REVIEW   OF 

After  extracting  from  the  Review  such  a  compliment,  and 
with  the  more  direct  compliments  there  given  us,  it  may  seem 
unkind  to  say  that  the  tone  of  the  reviewer  is  that  rather  of 
a  declairaer  than  of  a  reasoner.  But  as  "less-informed"  per- 
sons are  often  caught  by  positive  language,  and  insinuations 
against  the  parties  opposed,  it  is  our  duty  to  say,  that  this 
posiliveness  and  these  insinuations  abound  in  the  production 
before  us.  Let  our  timid  readers  then  bear  in  mind,  that  it  is 
easy  to  say  that  no  man  of  sense  thinks  as  Episcopalians  do,  and 
that  our  opinions  have  no  countenance  whatever  in  the  holy 
volume;  let  them  be  informed,  that  men  who  reason  are  apt  to 
regard  such  sayings,  except  as  they  occasionally  escape  an 
ardent  debater,  as  mere  sound,  a  lordly  kind  of  scolding,  resorted 
to  when  arguments  are  scarce,  or  when  the  current  of  argument- 
ation is  becoming  stagnant.  The  author  of  the  Tract,  says  the 
reviewer,  is  under  '•  the  wonderful  sway  of  prejudice" — certain 
of  his  inferences  "  would  be  driven  away  from  any  enlightened 
and  impartial  tribunal  on  earth  :  "  again,  "  we  confidently  assert 
that  there  is  no  authority  whatever  in  the  Word  of  God  "  for 
bishops  proper ;  the  claim  of  deacons  to  be  clergymen,  "  has  no 
foundation  whatever  in  the  Word  of  God  : "  if  this  claim  "  had 
not  been  actually  advanced,  it  would  never  have  occurred  to  us 
as  possible  that  it  should  enter  the  mind  of  any  thinking  man : " 
again,  "the  claim  advanced  in  behalf  of  Andronicus  and  Junia 
[or  Junias]  as  apostles,  is  not  only  unfounded,  but  really  border- 
ing on  the  ridiculous ; ^^  yes,  "ridiculous,"  although  that  claim 
is  allowed  by  Calvin,  by  Diodati,  by  Aretius,  by  others  in  Poole's 
Synopsis,  and  is  regarded  as  of  equal  probability,  or  more 
than  equal,  with  the  other  construction,  by  Hammond  *  and 
Macknight;  yet  adds  the  reviewer,  the  contrary  "is  the  general 
interpretation  of  intelligent  and  impartial  commentators:" 
again,  "  the  manner  in  which  Bishop  Onderdonk  undertakes  to 

dispose  of  the  plain  record is  one  of  the  most  singular 

examples  of  evasion  and  management  that  we  remember  ever 
to  have  seen  :  "  again,  the  opinion  that  itpta^vn^iov  in  1  Timothy, 
means  office,  the  presbyterate,  is  "fanciful  and  ridiculous:"  the 
word  seems  a  favorite  one,  "ridiculous;"  though  the  opinion 
has,  in  the  Tract,  the  names  of  Jerome  and  Ambrose,  of  Calvin  f 
and  Grotius,  and,  in  the  Answer  to  Mr.  Ba^rnes'  second  Review, 


*  Hammond  allows  this  absolutely,  on  John  xx.  21,  note  b.  We  here  specify  for 
this  opinion,  Menochius,  Tirinus,  Estius,  Vorstins,  and  Parseus ;  see  Poole's 
Synopsis.  Add  also,  Parkhnrst  and  Wolfius,  emd  Whitby,  as  we  understand  him ; 
who  cites  Chrysostom  and  Theodoret. 

t  The  objection  is  repeated  by  this  revieww,  that  Calvin  held  a  different  view 
afterward.  Not  exactly  true  ;  but  if  it  were,  he  still  allowed  this  one  to  be  reason- 
able. Dr.  Bowden  made  this  reply  long  ago,  as  the  reviewer  should  have  known. 
See  also  our  second  Answer  to  Mr.  Blrnes.  Dr.  Cooke,  we  now  observe,  has 
answered  still"  more  effectually.  (Essay,  p.  175;  Answer,  p.  21.)  The  Institutes, 
in  which  CaJvin  made  tliis  concession,  were  first  published  before  his  Commentary, 
in  which  he  partly  revokes  it ;  btU  successive  editions  of  the  former,  still  making 
the  concession,  were  published  till  "  five  years  before  he  died." 


EPISCOPACY  TESTED  BY   SCRIPTDRE.  231 

those  of  a  host  besides:  yet  again,  speaking  of  Bishop  Onder- 
donk's  arguments  at  large,  "our  only  wonder  is,  that  he  does 
not  see  tiiem  to  be,  both  in  their  individual  import,  and  in  their 
combined  character,  destitute  of  even  the  semblance  of  force;" 
in  plainer  terms,  the  reviewer  wonders  that  Bishop  Onderdonk 
"does  not  see"  himself  to  be  without  "even  the  semblance"  of 
common  understanding. 

Such  is  the  tone — we  could  make  other  extracts  of  the  same 
kind — of  this  Review,  in  a  periodical  "  conducted  by  an  Associa- 
tion of  Gentlemen  in  Princeton." 

Another  feature  of  this  Review  is,  that  it  creates  men  of  straw^ 
fictitious  arguments^  in  the  demolition  of  which  the  "less- 
informed  "  readers  will  be  apt  to  think  that  the  arguments  of  the 
Tract  are  demolished.  1.  It  is  said,  that  the  Tract  professes  to 
"  demonstrate /row  >S'cnpZMre,"  that  the  name  bishop,  given  in 
Scripture  to  presbyters,  was  appropriated  afterward  to  bishops 
proper:  and  in  conformity  with  \W\s  fiction,  the  reviewer  exults 
when  he  proclaims  that  this  appropriation  was  proved,  not  from 
Scripture,  but  from  "one  of  the  fathers."  Now,  who  ever  ex- 
pected to  prove  from  the  New  Testament,  an  occurrence  which 
did  not  take  place  till  after  its  books  were  written  ?  Or,  who,  but 
the  reviewer,  deems  this  change  of  a  name  the  "  principal  link 
in  the  chain  of  proofs,"  or  even  an  integral  part  of  the  scriptural 
discussion  of  Episcopacy?  We  proved  the  recognition  of  the 
first  order  in  that  volume,  without  reference  to  its  designation: 
that  is  the  scriptural  proof  of  the  only  important  point.  How 
or  when  that  order  came  by  the  name  of  bishop,  is  a  mere 
affair  of  history  :  and  as  historical  authority  for  the  change,  we 
adduced  the  declaration  of  Theodoret;  and  also  the  concession 
of  Videlius,  a  learned  Non-episcopalian,  that  it  was  as  early  as 
the  time  of  Clement  of  Rome.  Does  the  reviewer  contradict 
this  authority?  by  no  means.  He  only  contends  that  we  ought 
to  find  Scripture  —  for  what?  for  an  event  yet  future  when 
Scripture  was  written;  in  other  words,  di  prophecy — a  prophecy 
of  what?  of  a  mere  change  of  name  I  A  worthy  subject  of 
prophecy,  indeed!  He  urges,  however,  that  it  related  to  "a 
matter  of  so  much  importance"  —  importance!  we  might  as 
well  ask  the  Romanists  to  give  us  a  scriptural  prophecy  that  the 
bishop  of  Rome  would  acquire  the  name  of  Pope. 

2.  It  is  alleged  that  the  Tract  maintains  that  "the  apostles 
alone,  while  they  lived,  were  invested  with  the  power  of  ordi- 
nation," "  and  that  when  their  ministry  terminated,  they  left " 
their  rank  and  rights  to  "their  successors:"  to  demolish  this 
effigy  of  his  own  creation,  the  reviewer  replies  that "  Timothy,  and 
Tilus,  and  Barnabas  all  ordained,  and  yet  they  were  none  of  them 
apostles,  in  the  appropriate  sense  of  that  title."  Now,  the  Tract 
affirmed  that  these  three  ordained,  or  had  the  power  to  do  so, 
while  most  of  the  apostles  were  living;  as  also  the  seven 
"  angels,"  while  St.  John  was  living.  While  any  of  the  thirteen 
original  Apostles  were  on  the  earth,  these  and  others  were  their 


332  ANSWER    TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

official  compeers ;  when  they  died,  these  and  others  were  their 
successors,  as  coming  after  them — in  the  other  sense,  their 
succession  in  sacerdotal  standing  was  from  the  time  they  were 
set  apart  respectively  to  their  high  office.  The  Tract  did  not 
confine  ordaining  to  those  called  apostles  in  Scripture;  for  it 
ascribed  that  function  to  Titus  and  the  seven  "angels,"  who  are 
not  so  designated :  it  ascribed  it  to  the  Apostles,  and  to  certain 
other  individuals,  not  mere  elders.  May  we  not  asic  the 
reviewer,  "  What  does  your  [fictitious]  arguing  reprove?" 

3.  Some  strength  of  the  reviewer,  with  the  aid  of  the  mighty 
name  of  Barrow,  is  expended  on  the  proposition,  that  the 
extraordinary,  miraculous,  and  special  powers  and  duties  of 
the  Apostles  proper,  were  not  committed  to  successors.  Who 
said  they  were  ?  not  the  Tract  certainly ;  nor  any  Episcopa- 
lian we  ever  heard  of.  And  what  further  proposition  does  the 
reviewer  superinduce  upon  this  argument  of  straw  ?  just  this — 
•'But" — O  yes,  the  Presbyterian,  as  well  as  the  Episcopalian, 
has  something  to  save  out  of  the  smoke  of  this  blank  volley — 

"  But,  considering  the  Apostles  as  ministers  o/'Christ 

they  had  successors."  What  an  example  of  much  ado  about 
nothing ! — of  making  a  speech,  and  ending  at  the  point  started 
from !  Neither  party  claims  succession  to  the  extraordinary 
functions  of  the  thirteen  ;  but  both  claim  succession  to  them  as 
ministers  of  Christ."  All  this  was  known  before.  The  true 
questions  were,  What  sort  or  grade  of  "  ministers"  succeeded  to 
the  apostolic  ministerial  office  ?  and.  Was  the  superiority  of  the 
Apostles  to  the  elders  an  extraordinary  and  transient  arrange- 
ment, or  a  permanent  one  in  the  Church?  To  a  solution  of 
these  questions,  this  part  of  the  labor  of  the  reviewer  brings  us 
no  nearer.  The  "less  informed"  may  indeed  be  carried  away 
with  the  torrent  of  his  argument  against  a  shadow,  and  may 
imagine  that  because  no  extraordinary  apostolical  distinctions 
have  descended,  there  is  no  basis  for  Episcopacy ;  but  this  class 
of  readers  are  beginning  to  be  better  "  informed." 

4.  The  reviewer,  as  also  did  Mr.  Barnes,  adverts  to  the  "post- 
scripts "  to  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  and  to  that  to  Titus, 
"  which  speak  of  their  being  bishops,"  and  very  gravely  and 
learnedly  declares  them  to  be  spurious:  true — what  then?  did 
the  Tract  refer  to  them  ?  no:  does  any  Episcopalian  put  them 
into  the  scriptural  argument?  no:  does  any  Episcopalian  mean 
to  do  so  ?  no.  For  what  purpose  then  are  they  even  named  in 
this  controversy  ?  for  none,  that  we  can  perceive,  except  it  be 
to  make  a  display,  by  arguing  down  what  nobody  asserts. 

5.  On  the  word  "  evangelists,"  the  reviewer  offers  what  he 
deems  "conclusive  proof,  as  far  as  scriptural  authority  goes, 
that  the  title  has  no  reference  to  prelacy."  So  exactly  said  the 
Tract;  an  evangelist  might  be  either  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon; 
nay,  even  the  laity  "did  the  work  of  evangelizing;"  the  title 
did  not  imply  either  one  of  the  sacred  offices.  Why  "  prove," 
then,  that  it  "  has  no  reference  to  prelacy  ?  "  why,  but  to  make 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY  SCRIPTURE.  233 

a  show  of  proving  something,  in  an  argument  against  Epis- 
copacy ? 

6.  On  a  question  of  his  own  raising  —  "  Why  may  not  Timo- 
thy and  I'ilus  have  been  Presbyterian  evangelists?"  —  the 
reviewer  says,  that  the  author  of  the  'J'ract  '•  doubtless  will 
reply,  that  this  cannot  be,  because  none  but  prelates  ever  had 
the  power  of  ordaining."  An  easy  way  to  make  answers  !  put 
what  argument  you  please  into  the  mouth  of  your  opponent, 
and  then,  assuming  it  to  be  his,  exclaim,  ''Sliall  we  never  have 
done  with  this  constant  begging  of  the  question  in  dispute  ?" 
Let  us  turn  about  this  weatlier-cock  logic.  Why  may  not 
Timothy  and  Tiius  have  been  Episcopal  evangelists?  the 
reviewer  "  doubtless  will  reply,"  that  there  is  no  Episcopacy  in 
Scripture ;  and  then  we,  in  turn,  will  "  doubtless "  echo  his 
rejoinder,  "Shall  we  never  have  done  with  this  constant  beg- 
ging of  the  question?"  Such  questions  and  answers  might  be 
stereotyped,  with  blank  spaces,  and  filled  up  for  any  contro- 
versy on  any  subject.  We  say  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
not  Presbyterian  evangelists,  because  there  is  no  scriptural  evi- 
dence, or  no  clear  evidence,  that  presbyters  ordained  ;  and  no- 
scriptural  evidence  whatever,  that  presbyters  governed  presby- 
ters. That  is  our  "  reply ; "  the  reviewer  has  ascribed  to  us  a 
fictitioics  one.  And  we  see  no  reason  for  his  doing  so,  but  to 
exhibit  to  his  "les.s-informed  friends"  his  prowess  in  knocking 
to  pieces  a  puppet  of  his  own  fabrication. 

And  now  we  submit  to  every  one  who  has  read  impartially 
the  Tract,  and  this  Review  of  it,  whether  in  our  exposure  of  the 
tone  of  the  latter,  in  regard  to  its  mere  bold  assertions  and  detract- 
ing insinuations^  and  of  its  wasted  valor  upon  arguments  which 
no  one  controverts,  or  which  no  one  offers,  we  have  not  taken  out 
the  larger  half  of  its  pith  and  substance  ?  '  We  might  go  further, 
and  ask  of  such  readers,  whether  the  reviewer  has  weakened  the 
Tract  in  any  one  point?  But  as  this  might  be  deemed  an  imita- 
tion of  him  in  the  error  of  positiveness,  we  must  reply  to  his 
reasoning,  such  as  il  is.  This,  for  substance,  is  an  easy  work ; 
but  as  brief  objections  often  require  long  answers,  we  fear  that 
we  sentence  ourselves  to  no  small  labor,  and  perhaps  our  readers 
to  more  fatigue  than  may  be  acceptable  to  them.  It  is  a  matter 
of  duty,  however,  and  we  therefore  do  not  shrink  from  the  task. 

In  the  tract,  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  we  passed 
over  the  claims  of  our  deacons,  because  tiie  discussion  was 
unimportant,  as  compared  with  the  grand  one,  that  of  the 
claims  of  our  bishops.  But  the  reviewer  brings  them  into  the 
debate,  and  we  are  content  to  meet  him.  That  therefore  will, 
as  with  him,,  be  our  first  topic  ;  and  then  we  shall  taite  in  hand 
his  general  argument  against  Episcopacy. 

I.  The  reviewer  takes  the  usual  ground,  that  deacons  were 
^rs?  appointed  when  "the  seven"  were  ordained,  in  Acts  vi. ;, 
and  that  their  [only]  duties  are  there  "  explicitly  and  plainly 
stated."     We  join  issue  with  him  on  both  points. 
20* 


234  ANSWER    TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

And  here  we  begin  with  the  remark,  that  "the  seven"  are 
nowhere  in  Scripture  called  deacons — not  once.  The  purport 
of  this  remark  is,  tliat,  as  in  all  sound  reasoning,  we  are  not 
here  to  look  to  names,  but  to  things  or  facts.  That  "the 
seven"  were  deacons,  we  neither  question  nor  doubt;  we  judge 
they  were  such,  not  from  the  name,  which  they  have  not  in 
Scripture,  but  from  their  functions.  If,  however,  we  can  find 
that  their  functions  were  exercised  by  others  before  them,  then 
we  say  that  such  ministers  as  "the  seven"  existed  previously  to 
the  appointment  of  these.  If  also  we  can  show,  that  when  the 
title  'deacons"  does  occur  in  Scripture,  not  a  word  is  said  of 
their  "  serving  tables,"  we  think  we  shall  have  a  strong  argu- 
ment that  that  could  not  have  been  the  onli^  function  of  the 
ministers  who  had  this  official  designation.  The  passage  now 
before  us  is  this,  from  Acts  vi. 

And  in  those  days,  when  the  number  of  the  disciples,  was  viultiplied, 
there  arose  a  murmuring  of  the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews,  because 
their  widows  were  negkcted  in  the  daily  ministration,  iiaxovKu  Then 
the  twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  disciples  unto  them,  and  said,  It  is 
not  reason  that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  God  and  serve  Stanovtiv  tables. 
Wherefore,  brethren,  look  ye  out  from  among  you  seven  men  of  honest 
report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  whom  we  may  appoint 
over  this  business.  But  we  will  give  ourselves  continually  to  prayer,  and 
to  the  ministry  Siaxovia  of  the  word.     ***** 

"Whom  they  set  before  the  Apostles :  and  when  they  had  prayed,  they 
laid  their  hands  on  them. 

We  have  inserted  the  Greek  words,  that  it  may  be  seen  that 
they  are  not  used  in  the  appropriate  sense.  They  are  applied 
to  the  "daily  ministration,"  which  took  place  before  "the 
seven"  were  appointed;  to  the  "service"  which  the  twelve 
must  have  done  had  they  not  been  appointed ;  and  to  the 
"  ministry  of  the  word  : "  in  the  two  former  clauses,  the  appro- 
priate sense  might  be  claimed,  were  it  not  that  the  name  "  dea- 
con" does  not  yet  appear  to  have  been  given,  and  were  not  the 
expression,  at  its  third  occurrence  in  the  passage,  clearly  em- 
ployed in  the  more  general  signification.  It  is  plain^  therefore, 
that  "  the  seven "  are  not  called  "  deacons,"  even  by  impli- 
cation. 

It  is  commonly  supposed,  we  believe,  that  before  the  appoint- 
ment of  "  the  seven,"  the  Apostles  performed  the  office  of 
"serving  tables;"  but  this  we  deem  a  mistake.  They  agreed, 
that  "it  was  not  reasonable  for  them  to  leave  the  word,  and 
serve  tables."  Surely  it  was  just  as  unreasonable  for  them  to 
do  so  previously  as  subsequently — and  therefore  we  judge  there 
were  servants  of  tables  (whether  with  higher  functions  or  not) 
from  the  time  the  property  of  Christians  was  put  into  a  com- 
mon fund,  from  which  "distribution  was  made  to  every  one,  as 
he  had  need."  So  obvious  is  this  consideration,  that  Matthew 
Henry,  Doddridge,  and  T.  Scott,  allow  that  the  Apostles  had 
agents  for  this  work  before  this  period  \  Bishop  Stack  thinks 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  23a 

"  the  ministration  was  left  at  large  ; "  and  Mosheim  says,  "  The 
Church  was  undoubtedly  provided  from  the  beginning  with 
inferior  ministers,  or  deacons  j  no  society  can  be  without  its 
servants,  and  still  less  such  societies  as  those  of  the  first  Chris- 
tians  were."  Here,  then,  is  aur  first  reason  for  asserting  that 
there  were  such  functionaries  before  "  the  seven  >"  the  work 
was  extensive  from  the  first,  among  the  many  thousands  of 
converts,  not  a  few  of  whom  must  have  been  supported  from  the 
general  fund;  and  the  Apostles  would  have  had  to  "leave 
the  word"  altogether,  had  they  discharged  this  lower  office, 
which  would  "not"  have  been  "reasonable."  Our  next  argu- 
ment for  this  position  is,  that  had  the  "  twelve  "  given  lhei.p 
spare  time,  if  they  at  first  had  enough,  to  "this  business,"  and 
yet  afterward  found  it  insufficient,  because  the  number  of  dis- 
ciples was  "  multiplied,"  and  still  multiplying,  they  would  have 
scarcely  appointed  only  "  seven "  persons  to  take  their  place : 
we  allow  that  the  contrary  supposition  is  not  impossible,  but  we 
submit  that  it  is  improbable ;  if  so,  it  is  just  as  probable  thai 
there  were  previously  those,  not  apastles,  who  performed  "  the 
daily  ministration"  of  "serving  tables."  Our  third  argument 
for  this  opinion  is,  that  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  the 
twelve  inspired  Apostles  would  "  neglect "  any  of  the  poor,  and 
particularly  that  they  would  be  guilty  of  "neglect"  with  a 
'party  or  pofrtial  aspect,  favoring  the  "  Hebrew  "  widows  to  the 
injury  of  the  "Grecian"  —  the  hoxnfe-born  Jewish  Christians, 
rather  than  the  foreign  of  Jewish  descent.  True,  some  com- 
mentators allege  that  the  "murmur"  was  unjust ;  but  the  holy 
record  says  no  such  things  and  the  Apostles  allow  its  justice  in 
providing  a  remedy  for  the  "neglect."  We  repeat,  then,  that 
the  previous  "ministration,"  and  the  "negligent"  manner  of 
fulfilling  it,  are  to  be  ascribed  to  other  agents  than  the  Apostles. 

The  only  seeming  objection  to  this  view  of  the  case,  is  the 
expression  "but  we  will  give  ourselves  continually  io  prayer, 
and  the  ministry  of  the  word."  This,  we  say,  is  but  an  objec- 
tion in  appearance,  for  it  means  no  more  than  "  we  will  per- 
severe in  constant  attention  to  these  duties."  It  does  not  imply 
that  the  Apostles  had  previously  given  but  a  partial  attention  to 
them.  We  are  not  certain  but  we  are  honored  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  reviewer  on  this  point — he  argues  "that  the  Apos- 
tles considered  the  duties  of  this  office  as  of  such  a  nature, 
that  their  undertaking'  to  fulfil  them,  vx)idd  compel  them  to 
leave  preaching,  and  devote  themselves  to  the  care  of  money 
tables."  We  suppose  he  means  that  they  had  at  no  time  ful- 
filled "this  office  ;"  his  argument  is  decidedly  to  that  eflFect. 

It  follows,  we  think,  from  this  course  of  reasoning,  that  "  the 
seven"  were  appointed  to  make  up  the  deficiency  in  the  number 
of  the  functionaries  who,  till  now,  had  "served  the  tables"— 
and  particularly  to  meet  the  claims  of  the  "  Grecian  "  poor. 
Accordingly  Mosheim,  after  mentioning  the  earlier  "deacons," 
adds—"  These  first  deucons  of  the  Church,  being  chosea  from 


236  ANSWER    TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

among  the  Jews  who  were  born  in  Palestine,  were  suspected 
by  the  foreign  Jews  of  partiality  in  distributing  the  offerings, 
which  were  presented  for  the  support  of  the  poor.  To  remedy, 
therefore,  this  disorder,  seven  other  deacons  were  chosen  by 
order  of  the  Apostles,  and  employed  in  the  service  oi  that  part 
of  the  church  at  Jerusalem  which  was  composed  of  the  foreign 
Jews,  converted  to  Christianity.  Of  these  new  ministers,  six 
were  foreigners,  as  appears  by  their  names;  the  seventh  was 
chosen  out  of  the  proselytes,  of  whom  there  were  a  certain 
number  among  the  first  Christians  at  Jerusalem,  and  to  whom 
it  was  reasonable  that  some  regard  should  he  shown  in  the 
election  of  the  deacons,  as  well  as  to  the  foreign  Jews."  This 
view  of  the  affair  of  the  deacons  is  just  and  probable  every  way. 
It  was  not  a  general  "  neglect"  that  was  complained  of,  but  a 
party  one,  or  partiality  ;  of  which  the  Apostles  could  not  have 
been  guilty,  but  only  their  agents;  and  such  other  agents  were 
appointed  as  would  remedy  this  evil  precisely.  Among  "the 
seven"  there  does  not  appear  to  have  been  one  native  "  Hebrew," 
an  omission  which,  without  the  construction  before  us,  would 
have  invited  a  "  murmur"  from  the  party  before  favored.  The 
number  of  disciples  was  great — three  thousand  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost— five  thousand  soon  afterward — ^Ihen  "  multitudes 
of  men  and  women"  added — then  the  number  "multiplied:" 
add  to  these  facts,  that  large  sums  were  contributed,  and  that 
the  "  ministration  "  of  them  was  extensive,  and  it  will  scarcely 
be  denied  that  "seven"  men  were  not  enough  to  superintend 
minutely  their  distribution.  We  again  affirm,  therefore,  that 
others  besides  "  the  seven  "  must  have  performed  that  function 
before  them. 

One  corollary  to  this  conclusion  is,  that  if  "  the  seven  "  were 
deacons  because  they  "served  tables,"  these  others  were  dea- 
cons for  the  same  reason.  And  thus  the  first  institution  of  this 
office  is  not  found  in  the  chapter  belore  us. 

A  further  corollary  is,  that  as  "the  seven"  were  ordained, 
those  who  were  deacons  before  them  must  have  had  a  similar 
or  an  equivalent  setting  apart.  Strange  would  it  have  been,  to 
have  one  portion  of  these  officers  solemnly  dedicated  to  their 
work,  when  the  other  portion  had  been  left  without  any  such 
honor.  Ill  calculated  would  it  have  been  to  allay  party  "  mur- 
muring," to  bave  the  deacons  for  the  Grecians  ordained,  when 
those  for  the  Hebrews  had  received  no  separation.  The  pre- 
sumption, then,  the  strong  presumption,  without  a  particle  of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  is,  that  the  earlier  deacons  were 
solemnly  commissioned  to  their  station  in  the  Church.  If  the 
Apostles  did  not  conduct  previously  this  "  ministration,"  which 
it  seems  clear  they  did  not— if  others  had  acted,  under  their 
general  superintendence,  in  discharging  it— then,  whatever  rea- 
sons existed  for  setting  apart  "  the  seven  "  to  discharge  it,  under 
their  continued  supervision,  the  same  reasons  must  have  required 
the  former  agents  also  to  be  men  set  apart  to  the  office. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCKIPTURE.  237 

And  now,  this  portion  of  our  argument  advances  rapidly. 
There  were  already,  before  "the  seven"  were  ordained,  men 
who  had  the  same  right  to  be  called  deacons  that  they  had. 
These  men  were  also  ordained,  or  set  apart,  or  solemnly 
commissioned.  Who  were  these  men  ?  Nothing  is  intimated 
of  such  an  ordination  in  the  previous  chapters  of  the  Acts.  But 
there  is  a  yet  earlier  record  of  a  sacred  commission  given  to 
others  than  the  twelve  Apostles :  it  is  found  in  Luke  x.  ;  where 
it  is  declared  that  "  the  seventy  "  were  "  appointed,"  and  sent 
fortli  to  proclaim  the  Gospel,  and  that  they  "  returned  "  from 
their  mission.  What  became  of  them  after  their  return  ?  Not 
a  word  more  is  explicitly  recorded  concerning  them.  Are  we 
to  infer  then  that  they  abandoned  their  sacred  calling,  and  did 
nothing  further  in  their  ministry?  Are  we  to  suppose  that 
they  are  really,  as  well  as  apparently,  out  of  sight,  in  the 
subsequent  parts  of  the  inspired  history  ?  Or  shall  we  rather 
presume,  that  some  of  these  commissioned  men  were  the  deacons 
who  officiated  before  "  the  seven  "  were  ordained  ?  To  us,  this 
presumption  appears  probable  in  the  highest  degree.  Indeed, 
the  alternative  is,  to  suppose  a  previous  ordination  by  the 
Apostles,  not  hinted  at,  or  to  allow  that  some  of  these,  known  to 
have  been  set  apart,  were  the  functionaries  we  are  in  quest  of. 
We  are  aware  that  very  many  ordinations  must  have  taken 
place  which  are  not  recorded,  and  that  this  act  at  the  hands  of 
the  Apostles  may,  without  inconsistency,  be  supposed  of  these 
earliest  deacons.  But  we  submit  that  the  supposition  is  needless, 
v/hen  we  find  so  large  a  number  of  men  already  ordained  or 
"  appointed  "  by  the  Saviour. 

Our  Presbyterian  brethren,  of  course,  make  here  the  usual 
objections.  Deacons,  they  allege,  were  not  empowered  to 
preach,  as  "  the  seventy  "  were ;  and  therefore  "  the  seven  " 
and  "the  seventy"  could  not  have  held  the  same  office.  This 
further  topic  we  now  present  to  the  reader. 

And  we  first  ask,  Why  were  deacons  ordained  at  all,  if  they 
only  "served  tables,"  if  they  were  mere  treasurers  and  almon- 
ers? and  why  ordained  by  the  Apostles?  These  functions  are 
quite  common  in  various  departments  of  society.  Vast  num- 
bers of  persons  are  constantly  intrusted  with  the  money  of 
others— clerks,  agents,  apprentices,  servants,  the  porters  of 
cowiting-houses — with  large  sums.  What  is  there  in  such  a 
trust  to  make  it  probable  that  apostolic  ordination  would  be 
required,  when  the  trust  related  to  the  funds  of  the  Church? 
Who  thinks  of  a  formal  induction  into  such  a  trust,  in  any  other 
case? — except,  perhaps,  in  some  associations,  where  it  is  done 
merely  for  parade — which  of  course  is  no  analogy  to  be  applied 
to  church  affairs.  All  analogy  is  against  the  notion  that  men 
should  be  ordained,  when  the  one  function  is,  to  have  charge  of 
money  and  the  poor.  The  presumptive  argument  is,  then,  that 
"  the  seven,"  when  ordained,  were  not  ordained  for  this  business 
alone,  but  also  for  other  duties,  such  as  would  correspond  in 


238  ANSWER   TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

saoredness,  with  iliat  of  ttie  very  high  solemnity  with  which 
they  were  set  apart. 

Nor  are  we  without  sufficient  intimations  of  these  further 
duties.  When  "  deacons  "  are  mentioned  in  Scripture  by  that 
title,  in  1  Tim.  iii.,  not  a  word  is  said  of  tiieir  having  charge  of 
money  and  the  poor — not  a  hint  of  the  sort  is  given  :  it  is  pro- 
bable that  this  part  of  their  office  became  much  less  important, 
when  the  large  contributions  to  the  Church  ceased  to  be  made ; 
and  were  it  not  for  the  case  of  "  the  seven,"  who  yet  have  not 
the  title,  no  one  would  apply  such  a  key  to  the  recital  in  that 
chapter,  of  the  qualifications  lliey  should  possess.  On  the 
contrary,  the  passage  implies  that  they  were  an  inferior  grade 
of  clergymen.  Let  us  examine  the  proofs  of  this  assertion. 
1.  They  were  required  to  "  hold  the  mystery  of  the  faith  in  a 
pure  conscience:"  on  which  qualification  Macknight  says,  and 
refers  also  to  Beza — "  Soundness  in  the  faith  being  required  ia 
deacons,  it  is  a  presumption  that  they  were  sometimes  era- 
ployed  in  teaching  ;  but  whether  by  preaching,  or  by  catechiz- 
ing is  hard  to  say.  They  likewise  performed  the  office  of 
readers,  in  the  Church."  Doddridge  also  allows,  on  a  sub- 
sequent verse,  that  "it  is  highly  probable  deacons  might 
frequently  officiate  as  occasional  teachers  in  public  assem- 
blies." Scultetus  allows  this  function  of  deacons  more  expli- 
citly. (Poole's  Synopsis.)  2.  Those  who  "  have  used  the  office 
of  a  deacon  well  purchase  to  themselves  a  good  degree."  Many 
Presbyterian  commentators,  the  majority  of  those  now  within 
our  reach,  regard  this  "good  degree"  as  advancement  to  the 
pastoral  office.  Those  who  act  well  as  deacons,  may  expect  to 
be  promoted,  and  made  presbyter-bishops  :  no  exception  is 
made  or  hinted ;  it  was  the  rule  that  worthy  deacons  should  be 
ordained  presbyters;  such  was  the  reward  of  their  fidelity,  as 
the  word  "purchase"  implies.  Is  there  such  a  rule,  or  such  a 
reward,  in  the  case  of  the  deacons  of  parity  ?  could  there  be 
such  a  rule,  or  such  a  reward,  for  those  who  ovly  "  served 
tables?"  No;  the  idea  is  preposterous;  for  there  is  no  affinity 
between  such  an  office  and  that  of  ministers  of  the  word  and 
sacraments ;  men  may  excel,  and  may  improve  through  their 
whole  life,  in  the  stewardship  of  earthly  things,  yet  be  totally 
unfit  to  be  stewards  of  things  heavenly.  An  affinity  then  there 
must  be,  between  the  functions  of  deacons  and  those  of  presby- 
ters, or  the  inspired  language  before  us  is  incongruous  and  void 
—there  must  be  that  in  "  the  office  of  a  deacon,"  besides  his 
"serving  tables,"  which,  if  duly  improved,  will^^  him  for  "the 
office  of  a  [presbyter]  bishop."  In  other  words,  the  two  offices 
must  be  similar,'boi\\  sacred,  and  concerning  sacred  functions; 
only  the  former  is  inferior  to  the  latter — in  what  particulars  we 
shall  show  hereafter.*    We  add,  in  this  place,  a  coincidence  in 


♦  Dr.  Campbell  says — "  Tlie  deacons were  admitted  very  early,  probably 

io  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  to  an  inferior  part  in  the  sacred  ministry,  such  aa 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  239 

phraseology  of  some  weight.    St.   Paul   says,   "If  any  man 
desire  the  office  of  a  [presbyter]  bishop,  he  desireth  a  good 
KaXov  work;"  and  then,  as  if  to   point  to  that  expression,  he 
declares,  "They  that   have  used  the  office  of  a  deacon  well 
purchase  to  themselves  a  good  xaXov  degree  " — the  passages  are 
translated  by  Macknight,  "  an  excellent  work,"  "  an  excellent 
degree."    We  submit  that  on  the  very  face  of  the  chapter,  the 
reference  of  the  latter  phrase  to  the  former  is  highly  probable. 
We  further  suggest,   that  the  expression  "  a  good  work "  is 
regarded  by  commentators  as  very  emphatic ;  and  the  Apostle 
would  hardly  use  the  same  emphatic  word  within  a  few  verses, 
and  apply  it  to  the  encouragement  of  deacons,  unless  he  meant 
that  their  fidelity  would  entitle  them  to  a  share  in  the  "  good 
work"  of  presbyter-bishops.     The  deaconship  then  was   the 
first  "degree"  in  the  same  sacred  office  of  which  presbytership 
was  the  second  "  degree."    3.  It  is  further  declared  by  St.  Paul, 
that  those  who  "  have  used  the  office  of  a  deacon  well  purchase 
to  themselves  [or  obtain]  great  boldness  in  the  faith  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus."    This  is  interpreted  by  Macknight,  "  great  cour- 
age in  teaching  the  Christian  faith;"  implying  that  teaching 
the  faith  was  an  employment  of  deacons,  as  such.    And  this  is 
the  true  meaning.     For,  why  should  the  mere  servants  of  tables 
acquire  more  "boldness  in  the  faith"  than  the  other  laity? 
The  language  evidently  imports  that  deacons  were  officially 
connected  with  the  Christian  faith,  were  officially  occupied  in 
studying  it,  as  theologians  by  profession,  and  were  o^cially 
pledged  to  declare  and  maintain  it.    If  it  be  objected,  that  their 
acquiring  this  boldness  and  confidence  in  preaching,  may  mean 
their  having  such  a  quality  after  reaching  the  "  good  degree"  of 
presbyters,  we  answer,  that  the  Apostle  speaks  of  it  as  pro- 
duced, "  purchased,"  obtained,  by  "  using  the  office  of  a  deacon 
well:"  and  this  unavoidably  implies   that  declaring  the  faith 
was  part  of  that  office,  and  that,  by  discharging  this  branch  of 
the  office  with  fidelity,  deacons  became  such  proficients  as  to  be 
able  to  discharge  the  same  duty  with  perfect  confidence  when 
the  time  of  their  promotion  should  come.     We  think,  then,  that 
the  inference  is  as  clear  as  any  deduced  from  the  Bible,  that 
the  scriptural  deacons  were  ministers  of  the  word,  yet  of  an 
inferior  grade,  and  preaching  with  less  "  boldness,"  with  less 
authority,  than  they  would  when  advanced  to  be  presbyters; 
they  were  intrusted  with  the  Gospel,  but  not  fully  and  finally; 
their  powers,  in  this  respect,  were  equivalent  to  those  of  our 
deacons,  who  preach  under  a  license  from  their  superior. 

On  the  principle  that  all  who  are  commissioned  to  preach 
"the  faith,"  have  power  to  admit  men  to  the  visible  profession 
of  that  faith,  by  baptizing  them — which  appears  a  sound  rule, 
and  indeed  to  follow  by  unavoidable  consequence — we  regard 


attending  the   pastors  in  the  discharge  of  the  religious  offices,  and  acting  under 
their  direction.     The  deaconship  served  in  fact  as  a  noviciate  to  the  ministry." 


240  ANSWER    TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

the  account  of  deacons  given  bjj^  St.  Paul  as  including,  by  just 
inference,  their  right  to  administer  that  sacrament.  We  sup- 
pose that  it  is  allowed,  on  all  hands,  that  every  minister  of  the 
Gospel  may  baptize.  If  then  Paul's  description  makes  deacons 
such  ministers,  they  have  that  power.  And  that  Paul  does 
make  them  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  we  have  shown,  we  trust,  to 
be  a  moral  certainty. 

The  only  objection  adduced  by  the  reviewer,  is,  that  it  is  not 
required,  in  this  passage,  that  deacons,  like  presbyter-bishops, 
be  "  apt  to  teach."  The  objection  is  of  no  force.  They  were 
inferior  ministers,  as  yet  acquiring  their  aptness  to  teach,  their 
"boldness"  in  declaring  the  faith.  When,  as  deacons,  they 
had  obtained  this  boldness,  then  they  were  "  apt  to  teach,"  and 
prepared  for  promotion  to  the  "  good  degree,"  the  "  good  work  " 
of  presbyter-bishops. 

Let  us  now  bring  back  this  evidence  to  the  case  of  "  the 
seventy."  We  suggested  the  probability  that  some  of  them 
were  the  deacons  which  the  church  at  Jerusalem  had  before 
"  the  seven "  were  ordained.  The  objection  was,  that  "  the 
seventy  "  had  power  to  preach.  But  this  objection  we  have  now 
set  aside — deacons,  expressly  so  denominated,  had  power  to 
preach.  The  reader  will  of  course  bear  in  mind,  that  "  the 
seventy  "  not  being  called  deacons,  is  no  more  argument  against 
having  had  that  office,  than  the  same  fact  in  regard  to  "the 
seven  "  is  argument  against  their  having  had  it — not  once  is  the 
appellation  "deacon"  given  to  them.  We  think,  therefore,  we 
have  offered  an  unexceptionable  statement  of  the  condition 
of  the  church  in  Jerusalem,  in  this  respect,  at  the  period  in 
question.  That  it  had  deacons  at  that  period,  is  every  way 
probable.  And  that  these  were  some  of  "  the  seventy,"  is  far 
more  probable  than  that  others  were  ordained,  when  there  were 
so  many  already  commissioned. 

But  it  will  be  further  objected,  that  "the  seventy"  could  not 
have  been  mere  deacons,  because  they  received  (Luke  x.)  the 
same  powers,  and  were  to  perform  the  same  duties  with  those 
of  "  the  twelve,"  (Matt,  x.)  who  were,  it  is  alleged,  full  minis- 
ters of  the  Gospel  —  the  reviewer  appears  to  regard  both  as 
having  the  same  commission.  The  reply  to  this  objection  is 
easy.  The  ordinary  powers  first  bestowed  on  "  the  twelve," 
were  to  preach  and  baptize,  the  latter  being  inferred  from  the 
fact  that  they  did  so,  and  from  the  commission  to  proclaim 
"the  kingdom  of  God,"  which  implies  the  right  to  admit  into 
that  kingdom  by  this  initiating  ordinance.*    The  same  ordinary 

*  This  commission  was  given  to  the  twelve  when  they  were  first  called,  respect- 
ively, by  the  Saviour ;  they  baptized  before  John  was  cast  into  prison.  (John  iii.  22 ; 
iv,  2.)  The  account  therefore  in  Matt.  x..  and  the  parallel  places,  being  subsequent 
to  this  event,  refers  only  to  a  mission  on  which  they  were  sent,  and  a  charge 
concerning  its  fulfilment — and  also  to  their  endowment  with  miraculous  powers. 
It  is  a  recognition  of  the  ministerial  character  they  already  possessed.  The  ^rst 
call  of  several  of  the  twflve  is  mentioned  in  John  i.  35,  &c.  that  in  Matt.  iv.  IS, 
<£c.,  was  a  subsequent  one.  (See  Macknight.) 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE*  241 

powers,  so  far  as  can  be  gathered  from  the  holy  record,  were 
conferred  on  "  tlie  seventy,"  But  after  the  first  commission  of 
"the  twelve,"  and  about  the  time,  perhaps  just  before  "the 
seventy "  were  sent  forth,  the  former  received,  in  addition 
to  tiieir  previous  investiture,  the  power  of  the  keys,  (Matt,  xviii.) 
the  right  to  admit  to  communion,  or  reject  from  it ;  the  right  to 
declare  absolution,  or  refuse  to  do  so  —  which  included,  of 
course,  the  right  to  administer  the  eucharist,  recognised  as 
existing  in  "the  twelve,"  at  the  first  celebration  of  that  sacra- 
ment. These  further  powers  "  the  seventy  "  received  not,  as 
such  ;  they  did  not  receive  them  from  the  Saviour,  though  they 
may  have  been  subsequently  promoted  to  this  "  good  degree  " 
by  the  Apostles.  Here  then  we  have  a  body  of  ministers,  com- 
missioned to  preach  and  baptize,  but  not  to  exercise  the 
power  of  the  keys — in  other  words,  an  inferior  grade  of  minis- 
ters [proper]  of  the  Gospel — ^just  such  as  "the  twelve"  had 
lately  been.  Their  functions  correspond  precisely  with  those 
we  have  detailed  from  St.  Paul,  in  the  epistle  to  Timothy; 
without  the  name,  their  office  is  that  of  the  "deacons"  there 
described.  And  thus  vanishes  the  last  objection  to  the  earliest 
deacons  at  Jerusalem  being  some  of  "the  seventy." 

Nay  more :  from  this  last  exposition,  we  gather  an  increased 
probability  that  such  was  the  fact.  This  body  of  ministers  were 
"appointed"  to  the  deaconship.  Is  it  to  be  supposed,  that  they 
renounced  their  work  when  their  special  mission  ceased  ?  Is  it 
to  be  supposed  that,  when  the  Church  began  to  be  numerous,  and 
to  acquire  consistence,  and  was  in  need  of  services  in  their  par- 
ticular station,  they  had  all  deserted  their  Master  and  his  apostolic 
representatives,  tlieir  superiors?  We  think  not.  Some  of  them 
may  have  been  dispersed  over  .ludea,  as  part  of  the  "  five  hundred 
brethren"  were,  when  only  "a  hundred  and  twenty  "  were  left 
in  Jerusalem ;  but  a  portion  of  them  were  doubtless  in  that 
city  —  on  the  spot — deacons,  ready  for  their  work;  but  of  the 
"  Hebrew  "  class,  which  made  it  expedient  to  choose  others,  for 
the  "  Grecians"  and  the  proselytes. 

In  the  fact  that  "the  seventy"  held  the  ofi[ice  of  deacons, 
we  have  a  full  refutation  cf  the  plea  that  Philip,  "  one  of  the 
seven,"  must  have  reached  a  higher  office  before  he  evangelized 
and  baptized.  The  "seventy"  evangelized  and  baptized,  with- 
out attaining  a  higher  office.  The  whole  evidence  in  regard  to 
Philip  is,  that  he  was  ordained  a  deacon,  and  tliat  he  preached, 
and  administered  baptism  largely,  about  a  year  afterward,  and 
that  he  is  called  an  "evangelist"  some  twenty-six  years  after 
these  occurrences.  If  any  object,  that  by  this  time,  he  possibly 
had  attained  the  "good  degree"  of  a  presbyter,  we  might  let 
it  pass,  except  that  it  is  not  in  the  record,  and  he  is  even  then 
called  "  one  of  the  seven."  *    But  this  mere  possibility,  if  we 

♦  Dr.  Campbell  regarded  the  office  of  evangelist  as  an  extraordinary  one,  and 
supposed  it  might  be  held  by  one  whose  ordinary  office  was  that  of  a  deacon.     Be 

21 


■242  ANSWER   TO   A   THIRD    REVIEW   OF 

did  let  it  pass,  of  his  being  a  presbyter  at  the  very  late  period 
mentioned,  does  not  imply  a  probability  of  any  kind  or  degree, 
that  he  had  reached  that  grade  in  one  year  from  his  ordination 
as  deacon  :  for  such  an  allegation  we  ask  evidence  ;  but  there  is 
none.  We  affirm,  therefore,  that  so  far  as  appears  from  the  facts, 
without  any  presumption  or  probability  to  the  contrary,  Philip 
preached  and  baptized  as  a  deacon.  It  is  not  in  the  power  of 
man  to  give  any  other  scriptural  view  of  the  case. 

As  to  that  of  Stephen,  we  do  not  read  that  he  baptized,  but 
neither  do  we  read  that  he  actually  served  tables ;  and  if  any 
allege  that  the  latter  is  probable,  from  the  context,  we  allege  that 
the  former  also  is  probable,  from  the  other  scriptural  consider- 
ations we  have  adduced.  All  that  is  recorded  of  him,  having 
reference  to  the  point  before  us,  is,  that  he  was  constantly 
engaged  in  defending  the  Gospel ;  that  he  had,  as  a  deacon 
should  seek  to  have,  "great  boldness  in  [declaring]  the  faith 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus"  —  "This  man,"  said  his  enemies,  and 
though  they  were  "  false  witnesses,"  it  was  only  in  the  construc- 
tion of  his  preaching — "this  man  ceaseih  not  ov  vaverai  to  speak 
blasphemous  words  against  this  holy  place,  and  the  law  :  for  we 
have  heard  him  say  that  this  Jesus  of  Nazareth  shall  destroy 
this  place,  and  shall  change  the  customs  (or  rites)  which  Moses 
delivered  us."  Does  this  account  agree  with  the  notion  that  the 
deacon  Stephen  was  a  mere  servant  of  tables?  He  proclaimed 
"Jesus  of  Nazareth."  He  declared  the  very  important  doctrine 
of  the  passing  away  of  the  Mosaic  "customs  or  rites,"  by  their 
fulfilment  in  the  Christian  dispensation.  He  "ceased  not"  to 
do  this.  The  reviewer  is  mistaken,  when  he  says  that  Stephen 
'^simply  replied  to  those  who  'disputed'  with  him;"  he  evi- 
dently did  more,  he  made  the  defence  of  the  Gospel  his  business. 
Nay,  when  the  "  dispulers"  with  him  began,  Stephen  had  obvi- 
ously been  proclaiming  already  the  subjects  they  undertook  to 
"dispute"  about;  he  had  «7rear/?/ been  proclaiming Cliristianity, 
and  inculcating  the  evanescence  of  the  Levilicaf  ceremonies ; 
topics  which  belong  especially  to  authorized  teachers,  and  to 
them  exclusively  if  present  or  near  at  hand,  not  to  laymen. 
Here  surely,  then,  is  a.preaching  deacon,  if  there  ever  was  one. 
So  decidedly  does  this  appear,  that  Campbell  and  others  say  h« 
was  an  evangelist;  but  wiiliout  a  particle  of  scriptural  authority 
— he  had  not  the  tille,  ihohs^h,  like  "the  seventy,"  he  did  "the 
work  of  an  evangelist,"  and  that  most  earnestly  and  "boldly," 
and  while  like  them,  he  was  officially  no  more  than  a  deacon. 
His  defence  before  "the  council"  is  of  the  same  character. 

We  have  now  vindicated,  on  scriptural  grounds,  and  we  trust 
effectually,  the  claims  of  our  deacons.    Our  argument  in  their 

fsavs— "  Philip  is,  in  another  place,  but  at  a  later  period,  expressly  called  an  evan- 
gelist,  Acts  xxi.  8.  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  his  office  of  deacon  is  there  also 
named,  thnt  we  may  not  confound  them,  or  ascribe  to  the  one  whit  belonged  to  tiie 
other."  We  adduce  this  extract,  as  corroborating  the  opinion  that  Pliilip  remained 
adeacon  till  the  year  60  j  when,  however,  he  was  also  an  "evangelist." 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  2^$ 

behalf,  is  not  indeed  so  perfect  a  demonstration,  as  that  in  the 
Tract  in  the  cause  of  our  bishops.  Yet  we  deem  it  fully  suffi- 
cient. The  grand  point  m  Episcopacy,  the  exclusive  rights  of 
the  first  order,  being  proved  by  a  clear  induction,  what  we  have 
now  offered  is  an  ample  defence  of  the  subordinate  point,  the 
rights  of  the  third  order.  We  submit  it,  without  fear,  as  a 
complete  refutation  of  the  remarks  of  the  reviewer. 

Before  leaving  the  scriptural  topics  under  this  head,  we  must 
exhibit  some  of  them  again,  briefly,  to  show  their  further  results. 
We  have  seen  that  "  the  twelve"  had  at  first  the  right  only  to 
preach  and  baptize ;  which  made  them  deacons  in  office^  accord- 
ing to  St.  Paul  s  standard,  though,  like  "  the  seven,"  without  the 
name:  there  being  as  yet  no  occasion,  they  did  not  act  as 
almoners ;  or  rather,  if  fanciful,  it  is  nothing  worse,  to  allege 
that  this  diaconal  function  was  adumbrated  in  their  distributing 
the  provisions,  when  Jesus  fed  the  multitudes.  After  serving  in 
this  lower  ministry,  "the  twelve"  received  the  power  of  the 
keys;  by  which  promotion,  they  attained  the  "good  degree," 
and  were  commissioned  to  the  "good  work,"  of  presbvter- 
bishops. .  All  this  occurred  before  the  dcuih  of  our  Lord.  After- 
ward, after  his  resurrection,  "the  eleven"  were  commissioned 
a  third  time;  Christ  "breathed"  on  them,  and  said,  "Receive 
the  Holy  Ghost  ;"  they  thus  obtained  a  further,  and  of  course, 
higher  power  of  the  keys  ;  they  were  "  sent  "  by  Christ,  as  the 
Father  had  sent  him;  he  made  them  the  representatives  in  "all 
the  world,"  in  "all  nations,"  of  the  "power  given  unto  him  in 
heaven  and  in  earth  ;"  and  declared  he  would  be  "with"  them. 
\vith  them  and  their  successors,  "  always,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world;"  which  intimation  of  their  having  successors  in 
ofTice,  implies  their  power  to  create  them,  i.  e.  to  ordain  such 
ministers  as  themselves,  and  of  course  those  of  the  inferior 
grades.  This  third  commission  nsade  the  Apostles  more  than 
they  were  before;  more  than  presbyter-bishops,  which  they 
became  on  acquiring  their  first  power  of  the  keys:  in  other 
words,  it  made  them  aposile-bisliops,  bishops  proper.  Here  then 
in  the  facts  of  the  case  as  recorded  in  Scripture,  we  see  plainly 
the  three  orders  of  Episcopacy— the  aposiles  rose  to  their  full 
eminence  through  those  "  degrees  "  —  being  first  deacons  in  func- 
tion, then  presbyters,  and  then  bishops.  And  here  we  are  happy 
to  find  that  the  reviewer  agrees  with  us  in  'part.  We  claim  three 
successive  commissions  for  the  Apostles — he  allows  two.  He 
speaks  of  the  first  ^^  commission  given  by  our  Lord  to  the  twelve, 

and  afterward  to  the  seventy,"  and  says  that  it  "  includes 

what  belongs  to  every  minister  of  the  Go.'ipel:^^  the  twelve  then, 
according  to  the  reviewer,  were  "ministers  of  the  Gospel"  by 
their  earliest  commission,  whatever  was  its  date.  He  speaks 
also,  in  the  paragraph  the  third  previous,  of  "the  final  commis- 
sion which  the  Saviour  gave  to  the  Apostles,"  after  his  resur- 
rection, and  which,  he  allows,  contains  the  promise  that  "is 
considered  as  pointing  to  the  ministerial  succession."    Pladnl^j. 


244  ANSWER    TO- A    THIRD    REVIEW   OP 

then,  the  reviewer  being  judge,  we  have  two  sacred  commissions 
— ^.u)d  two  commissions  imply  two  offices,  or  two  grades  of 
office:  what,  alas,  becomes  of  parity?  Two  commissions — the 
first  made  the  twelve  "  ministers  of  the  Gospel  "  —  what  did  the 
second  make  the  eleven?  —  something  different?  no;  they  con- 
tinued to  be  Christ's  "ministers" — something  less?  no;  they 
lost  no  power  they  iiad  received — it  follows  unavoidably,  that  it 
made  them  something  more!  The  first  commission  inducted 
them  into  the  ministry,  the  second  cotiimission  inducted  them 
into  something  more  ;  in  other  words,  it  made  them  higher 
ministers  than  the  first  did:  what  becomes  of  parity?  verily, 
she  has  the  coup  de  grace  from  one  of  her  own  sons.  Two 
commissions,  again — the  first  contained  no  promise  that  is  "con- 
sidered as  pointing  to  the  ministerial  succession,"  and  of  course 
implied  no  power  to  ordain  ;  the  second  does  contain  that 
promise,  and  implies  that  power;  the  ordaining  function  then 
does  not  belong  to  the  lower  "ministers  of  the  Gospel,*'  but  only 
to  the  higher:  what  becomes  of  parity?  slain  already,  we  can 
only  add,  that  she  is  now  buried— and  both  at  the  hands  of  the 
reviewer  !  This  done,  we  ask  him,  or  any  other  candid  investir 
gator  of  Scripture,  who  finds  there  the  two  commissions,  whether 
he  does  not  rather  find  tlie  three  that  we  have  described — that 
to  an  office  equivalent  to  deaconship,  before  the  power  of  the 
keys  was  given  —  that  to  an  office  equivalent  to  presbyiershipj 
when  that  power  was  added  to  those  before  possessed — and  that 
to  an  office  equivalent  to  the  episcopate,  when  the  promise 
was  added,  "  which  is  considered  as  pointing  to  the  ministerial 
succession  ?  " 

Another  result,  from  the  scriptural  topics  we  have  had  before 
us,  is  to  this  effect.  The  "  seventy  "  were  ministers  without  the 
power  of  the  keys ;  in  other  words,  they  held  the  office  of 
deacons,  as  defined  by  Paul.  About  the  time  they  v^ere  thus 
commissioned,  'Hhe  twelve"  received  tliat  power;  in  other 
words,  they  were  advanced  to  the  office  of  presbyters.  Here 
are  those  two  orders  existing  at  the  same  time,  during  our 
Lord's  personal  ministry.  Can  we  not  find  the  highest  order 
likewise,  at  that  period?  If  our  Saviour  declared  that  He  was 
"sent"  by  the  Father,  "as"  himself  sent  the  Apostles,  when 
he  gave  them  this  highest  office,  may  we  not  justly  regard 
him  as,  in  this  particular  sense,  as  well  as  generally,  the  chief 
minister  of  his  religion,  while  he  was  on  earth?  He  is  called 
"  the  Apostle  of  our  profession,"  or  religion,  after  that  word  had 
obtained  its  appropriate  meaning,  and  the  apostles  were  distin- 
guished from  the  elders :  is  it  then  a  mere  fancy  to  consider 
him  as  the  Apostle  distinctively,  while  "the  twelve"  were 
elders,  and  "the  seventy"  were  deacons?  In  point  of  fact,  he 
had  the  powers  thus  assigned  him  ;  is  it  not  fair,  then,  as 
a  matter  of  construction,  to  regard  him  at  the  time  mentioned, 
as  holding  those  powers  in  the  compress  relation  to  his  Church 
of  its  Qhief  earthly  minister,  the  highest  of  the  three  orders? 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTDRE.  245^ 

We  would  not  rest  any  part  of  the  proof  of  Episcopacy  on  this 
construction;  but,  with  that  constitution  of  tlie  sacred  office 
otherwise  proved,  we  deem  this  a  further  ilhistration  of  it,  and 
also  sufficient  evidence  that  it  existed,  in  its  entireness,  during 
our  Lord's  personal  ministry.  With  this  threefold  arrangement 
of  the  Christian  priesthood,  carried  up  to  the  Lmmediate  eye, 
and  direct  appointment  of  the  Saviour,  we  see  clearly  iis  uni- 
formity and  unchangeableness.  Jesus  was  made  a  "priest" 
and  a  "high-priest"  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec,  when  the 
"  voice  from  heaven"  proclaimed,  "Thou  art  my  beloved  Son." 
Holding  thus  the  supreme  commission,  he  gives  to  "  the  twelve," 
first,  the  lowest  one ;  and  then,  promoting  them  to  the  middle 
grade,  he  completes  the  three  orders  by  substituting  for  them 
"the  seventy."  Thus  commenced  the  "bright  succession" — 
and  thus  will  it  continue  "  through  all  the  courses  of  the  sun" — 
yes,  "always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

We  like  the  scriptural  argument  It  is  always  satisfactory,  when 
fairly  and  adequately  conducted.  But  we  must  quit  it  now  for  a  few 
moments,  to  follow  the  reviewer  in  his  excursion  to  the  fathers,  for  matter 
against  our  deacons.  And  we  present  this  portion  of  our  remarks  in  a 
different  type,  that  it  may  not  be  confounded  with  the  rest  of  them. 

Hermas  is  the  reviewer's  first  authority,  whom  he  cites  thus — "Some 
were  set  over  inferior  functions  or  services,  being'  intrusted  with  the  care 
of  the  poor  and  widows."  Let  us  read  the  same  passage  in  Archbishop 
Wake's  translation,  "  Such  as  have  been  set  over  inferior  ministries,  and 
have  protected  the  poor  and  the  widows.'*  The  reviewer  seems  to  make 
the  care  of  the  indigent  the  only  kind  of  function  performed  by  deacons. 
But  the  other  translation  makes  that  care  one  among  other  "  ministries  " 
appointed  them  —  and  even  the  reviewer's  version  admits  this  interpret- 
ation— so  that  deacons  were  not  regarded  by  ^Hermas  as  mere  servants 
of  tables. 

Origen  says  that  deacons  "preside  over  the  money-tables  of  the 
Church  "—he  blames  those  of  them  who  '•  do  not  manage  well "  "  this 
business  "—and  he  adds,  that  "  we  are  taught  in  the  Acts  "  that  deacons 
"  were  appointed  "  to  "  this  function."  Who  doubts  all  this,  or  any  point 
of  it?     Origen  says  not  that  they  have  no  other  functions. 

Cyprian  speaks  of  a  deacon  who  was  '•  deposed  "  for  his  "  fraudulent 
and  sacrilegious  misapplication  of  the  Church's  money,"  and  for  with- 
holding the  "  pledges  deposited  with  him  "  by  "  widows  and  oi-phans  " — 
he  regards  also,  says  the  reviewer,  the  transaction  in  Acts  vi.  as  the  Jirst 
appointment  of  deacons.  What  conclusion  do  these  citations  furnish  that 
deacons  had  no  other  function  than  the  care  of  the  poor !  Does  not  the 
reviewer  know  that  Cyprian  says,  "  Those  who  believed  in  Samaria  were 
baptized  by  Phihp  the  deacon  ?  "  The  same  deacon  preached  to  them. 
(Ep.  73 ;  Potter,  248.) 

Ambrose,  [rather  the  commentary  ascribed  to  him,]  "  speaking  of  the 
fourth  century,"  says,  "  The  deacons  do  not  publicly  preach  "—they  might, 
however,  for  any  thing  that  the  reviewer  cites,  teach  in  their  subordinate 
capacity.  But  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  Ambrose  speaks  of  this  state  of 
things  as  a  change  from  the  former  one,  for  he  declares,  (Potter,  233,) 
"  At  the  beginning  all  were  allowed  to  preach  (evangelizare  ;)  but  now  the 
deacons  do  not  preach  publicly  "  (in  populo  prjedicant.)  This  writer  then 
ip  in  our  favor. 

21* 


246  ANSWER    TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

Chrysostom  says,  "  The  deacons  have  need  of  great  wisdom,  though  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel  is  not  committed  to  them."  We  submit  that  this 
father  means  the  full  right  to  preach  the  Gospel:  otherwise  why  mention, 
in  this  connexion,  the  "  great  wisdom  "  required  of  deacons  1  He  does  not 
deny  their  subordinate  right  to  preach  or  instruct ;  his  language  Implies 
no  more  than  we  have  stated.  This  is  the  true  account  of  the  views  of 
Chrysostom,  as  we  learn  from  the  late  Dr.  Wilson,  who  says  (160)  that 
this  father  "  has  given  it  as  his  opinion  on  Acts  vi.,  that  the  commission 
was  of  a  special  nature,  and  though  their  duties  were  in  the  first  instance 
ministerial,  yet  they  were  designed  to  be  preachers,  and  did  go  forth  as 
such." 

Jerome  calls  deacons  "  ministers  of  tables  and  widows  "  —  all  true— does 
he  deny  that  they  were  also  more  1  No,  indeed.  The  reviewer  forgot  that 
this  father  said,  "  Without  the  bishop's  license,  neither  presbyter  nor  rfeacon 
has  a  right  to  baptize  ; "  with  that  license,  both  may  do  it.  He  forgot  that 
Jerome  said,  "  It  is  the  custom  of  the  Church  for  bishops  to  go  and  invoke- 
the  Holy  Spirit,  by  imposition  of  hands,  on  such  as  were  baptized  by 
presbyters  and  deacons"  and  that  he  refers  to  "  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  " 
as  his  authority.  He  forgot  that  Jerome  calls  presbyters  priests  of  the 
inferioi*  degree,  and  deacor,^  the  third  degree"  of  priests.  (Cooke, 
§  154,  247.) 

The  Apostolical  Constitutions  forbid  "the  deacons  to  baptize,  or  admi- 
nister the  eucharist,  or  pronounce  the  greater  or  smaller  benedictions."  Not 
quite  accurate :  the  passage  forbids  a  deacon  to  "  offer  "  or  consecrate  the 
eucharist,  ov  it^oc<pz^£i ;  but  it  adds  that  when  the  bishop  or  presbyter  has 
"  offered,"  the  deacon  "  was  to  distribute  it  to  the  people,  not  as  a  priest,  but 
as  the  minister  of  the  priests."  Another  passage  speaks  of  the  bishop  or 
priest  as  distributing  the  bread,  and  the  deacons  following  with  the  cup  : 
(Potter,  "237.)  "  Let  the  deacon  take  the  cup,  and  delivering  it  let  him  say, 
'  The  blood  of  Christ,  the  cup  of  hfe.'  "  (Wilson,  282.)  As  to  the  prohi- 
bition to  baptize,  if  it  be  not  understood,  "  without  the  bishop's  license,"  it 
is  at  variance  with  Cyprian  and  Jerome,  and  others  to  be  now  adduced,  and 
thus  it  was  a  mere  arbitrary  regulation,  not  founded  on  Scripture,  or  the 
earlier  rules  of  the  Church. 

This  is  all  the  reviewer  quotes  from  the  fathers;  and  it  amounts  to 
nothing,  either  through  intrinsic  insufficiency,  or  the  force  of  counter  state- 
ments," as  we  have  seen.  But  to  settle  the  point  fdlly,  we  shall  present 
more  of  this  kind  of  evidence  than  we  have  already  placed  in  the  scales 
against  our  learned  opponent. 

Polycarp  says  that  deacons  are  "" ministers  of  God,  not  of  men"  —  in 
other  words,  tliey  are  "  ordained  for  men  in  things  pertaining  to  God." 

Ignatius  declares  that  deacons  are  "  intrusted  with  the  ministry  of  Jesus 
Christ ;"(Magn.  6.)  —  he  declares  that  they  are  "the  ministers  of  the 
-mysteries  of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  that  "  they  are  not  the  ministers  of  meat 
and  drink,  [only,]  but  of  the  Church  of  God  "  —  he  regards  those  who  "  do 
any  thing  without  the  bishop,  and  presbyters,  and  c^eacons,"  as  "without 
the  altar:"  of  course,  deacons  belong  to  the  "altar"  (Tral.  2,  7.)-r-he 
regards  deacons  as  "appointed  according  to  the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ  ;" 
they  belonged  to  the  ministry  as  modelled  by  our  Lord  himself,  and  were 
not  first  invented  for  the  emergency  in  Acts  vi.  —  he  recommends  that 
"  some  deacon  "  be  ordained  to  visit  his  bereaved  Church  at  Antioch,  "  as 
the  ambassador  of  God  "  —  and  he  says,  "  Philo,  the  deacon  of  Cilicia,  still 
ministers  unto  me  in  the  word  of  God."  (Philad.  Inscrip.  and  10^  II.) 
Let  these  deacons  be  compared  with  those  of  parity,  and  with  ours :  of  the 
former,  Ignatius  obviously  knew  nothing  ;  with  the  latter,  he  was  familiar. 

Justin  Martyr  vprites  —  "Those  whom  we  call  deacons  give  to  each  of 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  247 

those  who  are  present  a  portion  of  the  bread  which  hath  been  blessed,  and 
of  the  uine  mixed  with  water."   (Apol,  85.) 

Tertullian  declares,  "The  highest  priest,  who  is  tiie  bishop,  has  the  right 
of  baptizing.  After  him  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  not  however  without 
the  permission  of  the  bishop,  on  account  of  the  honor  of  the  Church." 
(Cooke,  §183.) 

The  34th  Apostolical  Canon  "  ordains  that  the  bishop  have  authority 

over  the  possessions  of  the  Church so  that  on  his  authority  all  things 

may,  by  ihe  presbyters  and  deacons,  be  adminictered  to  the  poor."  (Prot. 
Epis.  V.  3.  p.  383.)  Presbyters,  then,  were  servants  of  tables,  without  pre- 
judice to  the  spiritual  part  of  their  functions.  The  same  of  course  may  be 
affirmed  of  deacons.     Again  :  the  74th  says,  "Let  a  bishop,  or  presbyter, 

or  deacon,  engaging  in  war be  deposed."     Why  might  not  a  deacon, 

if  but  a  lay  one,  such  as  those  of  parity,  take  a  commission,  and  "  engage  in 
war  1 "  The  prohibition  shows  the  full  sacredness  of  the  office  and  duties 
of  the  deacon  mentioned  in  these  Canons. 

The  Council  of  Eliberis,  C.  77,  —  "  It  is  ordained  that  those  who  are 
baptized  by  a  deacon,  without  the  bishop  or  presbyter,  shall  afterward  be 
confirmed  by  the  bishop."  Again  :  "  Presbyters  and  deacons  are  forbid  to 
give  the  communion  to  those  who  had  grievously  offended,  without  the 
coamiand  of  the  bishop."    (Schol.  Arm.  i.  99.) 

The  Council  or  Synod  of  Ancyra  allowed,  that  deacons  wKo  lapsed  under 
persecution,  and  afterward  repented,  might  be  "received"  —  "but  not 
again  to  administer  the  bread  or  the  cup,  or  to  preach  Kijpvaativ/' 
(Dr.  Wilson,  102.) 

The  sixth  general  Council,  called  Quinisextum,  (Can.  16,)  declared  that 
the  precedent  of  the  seven  deacons  "  did  not  affect  the  number  or  the  office 
of  the  deacons  who  ministered  in  the  mysteries,"  or  as  Slater  translates  it, 
(204,)  "at  the  altar  of  the  Church." 

We  have  now  adduced  evidence  enough  of  this  sort,  to  overturn  all  that 
the  reviewer  has  brought  forward  :  probably  all  that  he  ever  can.  We  have 
shown  that  the  whole  voice  of  antiquity,  without  one  clear  exception, 
declares  the  deacons  to  be,  not  merely  ser\'ants  of  tables,  but  inferior  muiisters 
of  the  word  and  ordinances. 

II.  We  proceed  to  the  general  argument  of  the  reviewer 
against  the  claims  of  Episcopacy,  as  they  are  supported  in  the 
Tract. 

Here  we  first  notice  the  remark,  that,  while  we  affirm  the  word 
"bishop,"  as  found  in  Scripture,  to  refer  to  presbyters  in  all 
cases.  Dr.  Hammond  makes  both  "  bishop  "  and  "  elder  "  refer  to 
bishops  proper ;  and  supposes  the  second  order,  presbyters,  to 
have  been  instituted  after  the  apostolic  age.  In  this  opinion,  we 
know  not  that  Dr.  Hammond  has  been  seconded  by  any  one. 
Neither  do  we  deem  his  argument  on  the  subject,  as  given  in  a 
Note  to  Acts  xi.,  either  conclusive  or  just.  1.  A  great  portion  of 
it,  if  not  the  greater  portion,  is  built  on  the  slippery  ground  of 
mere  names  of  office.  Thus,  bishop  and  elder  are  identified  in 
Titus  i. ;  therefore  the  elders  were  bishops  proper ;  whereas  the 
inference  is  just  as  good,  that  the  bishops  were  elders  proper. 
Thus  again,  Clement  of  Rome  says  the  Apostles  ordained  some 
of  their  first  converts  bishops  and  deacons ;  ergo,  they  ordained 
no  presbyters ;  but  as  Clement  wrote  in  the  first  century,  his 
use  of  the  word  bishop  uiust  be  understood  as  in  Scripture.. 


248  ANSWER   TO   A   THIRD    REVIEW   OP 

2.  Because  Paul  and  Barnabas  brought  the  offerings  of  the 
Church  to  the  "elders"  in  Judea,  and  the  Apostolical  Canons 
assign  authority  over  the  church  property  to  bisliops,  Ham- 
mond argues  tiiat  these  elders  were  bishops  proper.  But  were 
this  granted,  it  would  not  follow  that  there  were  no-  presbyters 
in  Judea;  the  only  result  would  be,  that  "elders"  was  a  general 
designation  for  the  clergy,  including  all  the  orders,  as  appears  in 
other  passages :  the  same  remark  applies  to  the  extracts  wiicii  de- 
clare the  "  presbytery  "  in  1  Timothy  to  have  consisted  of  bishops. 
Besides  ;  if  the  apostolical  canons  are  evidence  that  these  elders 
must  have  been  bishops  proper,  to  entitle  them  to  receive  the 
church  property,  they  are  equal  evidence  that  the  "presbyters" 
of  whom  they  every  where  speak,  were  known  to  Scripture;  for, 
deny  that  presbyters,  being  found  in  these  canons,  must  be 
found  also  in  the  New  Testament,  and  it  may  equally  be  denied, 
that  their  setting  forth  Episcopal  authority  over  the  sacred 
treasury,  is  a  proof  that  the  scriptural  elders,  having  charge  of 
it,  held  the  Episcopal  office :  the  reference,  therefore,  to  these 
canons,  either  establishes  the  inspired  institution  of  presbyters, 
or  else  renders  nugatory  the  allegation  that  tlie  elders  in  ques- 
tion were  bishops  proper;  and  whichever  of  these  be  the  result, 
it  is  fatal  to  Dr.  Hammond's  argument.  3.  The  only  explicit 
authorities  he  adduces,  are  Epiphanius,  of  the  fifth  century,  and 
the  Greek  Scholiasts.  The  former  says,  that  when  the  Apostles, 
*at  the  beginning  of  their  preaching,"  found  "those  that  were 
fit  for  it,  bishops  were  constituted  ;  but  while  there  was  no  mul- 
titude of  Christians,  there  were  found  none  among  them  to  be 
constituted  presbyters:"  but  these  latter  notions  are  fallacious; 
"multitudes"  were  usually  converted  in  every  place,  and  so 
there  was  a  fair  opportunity  to  select  presbyters;  and  that  per- 
sons fit  to  be  bishops  could  be  found,  and  none  fit  to  be  presby- 
ters, is  incredible  on  its  very  face.  In  a  subsequent  part  of  the 
note,  Epiphanius  is  quoted  for  "Timothy's  power  over  the 
'presbyters.''^  The  other  authority  affirms,  "The  Apostle  left 
Titus  to  constitute  bishops,  having  first  made  him  bishop  ;"  and 
therefore  the  elders  mentioned  in  Titus  were  all  bishops  proper, 
none  of  them  presbyters :  but  this  conclusion  does  not  follow ; 
it  satisfies  the  language  to  say,  that  the  Scholiasts  included  both 
orders,  as  many  do,  under  the  appellation  "bishops"  or  "  elders." 
4.  The  rest  of  Hammond's  note  is  but  construing  the  sacred  and 
other  writers  according  to  his  theory. 

Against  this  theory  we  adduce  several  fatal  objections.  1.  We 
have  shown  it  to  be  highly  probable,  far  more  probable  than 
the  theory  before  us,  that  "  the  twelve "  were  presbyters  in 
fact,  though  without  the  name,  before  our  Lord's  death.  2.  If 
we  adhere  to  the  authorized  translation,  'elders  in  every 
•church,"  (Acts  >'iv.,)  there  were  several  in  each  church,  which 
is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  they  were  bishops.  3.  The 
elders  sent  for  from  Ephesus  are  called  "the  elders  of  the 
church/'  (Acts  xx.,)  one  church  again,  with  many  elders,  a 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY  SCRIPTURE.  249 

fact  irreconclleable  with  the  theory  of  their  episcopal  char- 
acter. 4.  When  Paul  and  his  comj.any  were  received  by 
James  at  Jerusalem,  the  day  following^  their  arrival,  "  all 
the  elders  were  present;"  (Acts  xxi. ;)  all  the  bishops  of 
Judea,  James  being  their  metropolitan,  argues  Dr.  Hamuiond: 
but  is  it  credible,  that  all  the  bishops  of  ail  Judea  could  have 
been  summoned  to  meet  Paul,  and  have  reached  Jerusalem 
"the  day  following"  his  arrival  in  that  city?  no,  they  were 
elders  on  the  spot,  presbyters  under  James.  5.  Paul  mentions 
to  the  Corinthians  their  ''  ten  thousand  instructers  in  CFiRisx," 
their  "  ministers  of  Christ,"  and  desires  these  to  "  take  heed  how 
they  builded  "  on  his  foundation :  is  such  language  consistent 
with  the  opinion  that  the  Corinthian  church  had  no  presbyters? 
6.  To  "  the  church  of  the  Thessalonians,"  the  one  church, 
Paul  says,  "  Know  them  which  labor  among  you,  and  are  over 
you  in  the  Lord:"  several  ministers  in  one  church — were  they 
all  bishops  ?  the  supposition  is  incongruous.  7.  'J'itus  is 
charged  to  "ordain  elders  in  every  city,"  a  'plurality  in  each 
city,  the  authorized  translation  being  the  judge;  were  they  all 
bishops  proper?  no,  for  the  same  reason.  8.  So  of  the  church 
at  Philippi,  it  had  its  "  bishops  and  deacons,"  a  'plurality  of  the 
former  as  much  as  of  the  latter;  they  surely  were  no  more 
than  presbyter-bishops ;  though  not  called  •  elders,'  they  must 
have  been  of  that  grade.  9.  James  desires  the  sick  to  "  send 
for  the  elders  of  the  church,  and  let  the'ni  pray  over  him,''^  &c. ; 
if  "  the  church"  means  the  particular  congregation  to  which 
the  sick  man  belonged,  there  were  several  called  elders  in  that 
one  congregation  ;  if  it  means  the  diocese,  there  were  several  in 
one  diocese ;  and  both  suppositions  are  fatal  to  the  theory 
before  us :  if  the  bishops  of  several  dioceses  were  meant,  then 
they  must  assemble  from  various  distances  to  pray  over  and 
"anoint"  a  sick  person;  which  is  a  supposition  wholly  out  of 
proportion,  and  which,  if  miraculous  cures  were  frequent,  must 
have  withdrawn  the  bishops  from  ttieir  proper  functions,  to  be 
constantly  travelling  about  in  company  among  the  sick  of  the 
dioceses  in  their  respective  neighborhoods.  The  only  rational 
construction  is,  that  these  elders  were  presbyters,  and  also 
perhaps  deacons.  10.  The  Saviour  rebuked  the  "  seven  angels" 
of  the  Asiatic  churches  personally,  not  by  St.  John  as  if  the 
metropolitan  of  those  bishops,  but  merely  as  His  secretary  ;  and 
this  shows  that  he  was  not  their  metropolitan,  as  is  by  some 
imagined.  It  is  also  a  strong  argument  against  there  having 
been  any  such  functionaries  so  early  as  the  scheme  before  us 
requires.  And  when  to  this  is  added  the  fact,  that  each  of 
these  "angels"  is  separately  addressed,  not  through  him  of 
Ephesus,  it  is  clear  that  the  latter  was  not  their  metropolitan, 
as  is  presumed  by  Hammond  in  regard  to  Timothy,  and  as  is 
essential  to  make  the  "bishops"  spoken  of  in  1  Timothy  bishops 
proper,  placed  under  him  as  their  archbishop;  without  this 
further  hypothesis  his  theory  must  fall.    But  it  is  plain,  from 


250  ANSWER   TO   A    THIRD   REVIEW   07 

what  has  been  said,  thai  there  was  710  arciibishop  in  Ephesu», 
even  so  late  as  the  year  96;  of  course^  none  was  there  in  65; 
and  thus  the  "bishops"  meiuioned  at  this  earlier  date,  as 
governed  by  Timothy,  yet  without  his  having  metropolitan  or 
archiepiscopal  rank,  could  have  been  only  presbyters. 

We  have  sufficiently  refuted,  we  trust,  this  opinion  of  Dr. 
Hammond,  who,  learned  as  he  was,  does,  like  Jupiter  himself^ 
occasionally  "  nod  : "  accordingly,  he  has  not  been  followed  in 
this  matter  by  any  writer  known  to  us.  We  have  shown  also-, 
we  hope,  that  his  theory  is  not  so  sustained  as  to  present  the 
least  objection  to  the  rule,  that  the  '-bishops"  so  called  ii* 
Scripture,  are  always  to  be  accounted  presbyters.  That  they 
had  a  superior  over  them,  our  Tract  has  shown.  And  we  now 
proceed  with  the  further  remarks  we  have  to  make  on  the 
review  of  that  production. 

These  will  be  much  abridged  by  our  having  already  offered  a 
sufficient  exposure  of  this  review,  or  sufficient  replies  to  most 
of  its  arguments.  1.  We  have  exposed  its  tone  of  positive 
assertion,  of  refuting  propositions  made  by  no  one,  and  of 
derogation  from  the  intelligence  or  the  candor  of  Episcopalians. 
Take  these  away,  and  there  will  remain  but  little  that  has  evea 
the  semblance  of  reasoning.  2.  The  apostleship  of  Timoihy, 
which  this  reviewer  denies,  has  been  sufficiently  proved  in  our 
answers  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes.  Our  readers,  of  course,  do  not 
wish  to  traverse  tliat  ground  again.  And  if  the  reviewer  stil! 
feels  interest  enough  in  the  subject,  to  honor  with  his  perusal 
our  piece  in  the  last  Protestant  Episcopalian,  he  can  judge  for 
himself  whether  we  are  over  sanguine  in  our  estimate  of  it.  One 
new  remark,  however,  we  perceive,  and  will  answer  it  briefly — 
apostles  are  "  distinguished "  from  evangelists ;  Timothy  is 
called  an  evangelist;  and  this  "precludes  the  possibility  of 
our  considering"  him  as  an  apostle.  Now,  the  rule  is,  that  the 
greater  office  includes  the  less,  both  being  the  same  in  kind  ; 
if,  therefore,  the  evangelists  were  officers,  the  apostles,  being 
higher  officers,  were  evangelists  also,  as  they  were  elders  like- 
wise, and  deacons ;  while  yet  mere  deacons,  elders  and  evange- 
lists were  not  apostles — Timothy  was  both  an  apostle  and  an 
evangelist.  If,  however,  evangelists  were  not  officers,  as  such, 
the  objection  of  the  reviewer  vanishes.  Apostles  are  "distin- 
guished" from  "  prophets,"  and  from  "  teachers  ;"  yet  Paul  the 
apostle  is  called  both  a  prophet  and  a  teacher  in  Acts  xiii.  So 
much  for  the  reviewer's  positiveness — "  precludes  the  possi- 
bility!" 3.  His  earnest  plea,  that  bishops  do  not  succeed  to 
the  extraordinary  powers  or  privileges  of  the  Apostles,  we 
have  already  shown  to  be  a  refutation  of  what  nobody,  no 
Protestant  at  least,  affirms.  And  his  repetition  of  the  fancy, 
that  none  but  tlie  special  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  could  be 
apostles,  he  will  find  disposed  of  in  our  answers  10  Mr.  Barnes. 
To  adduce  Dr.  Barrow  for  this  notion,  is  to  make  him  appear 
to  maintain  what  in  fact  he  does  noti  that    divine  argues 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  251 

against  the  Romanists,  that  the  thirteen  principal  Apostles  had 
certain  privileges  which  did  not  and  could  not  descend  by 
succession,  and  that  thus  the  pope,  arrogaiing  some  of  these 
privileges,  arrogates  what  does  not  belong  to  him  ;  for  in  this 
sense,  St.  Peter  had  no  successors.  But  tliat  bishops  inherit 
the  ordinary  rights  of  the  Apostles  Dr.  Barrow  expressly  allows, 
even  to  "  a  universal  sovereign  authority,  coiamensuraLe  to  an 
apostle  :  "  he  quotes  Cyprian  as  "  affirming  that  the  bishops  do 
succeed  St.  Peter  and  the  other  Apostles  by  vicarious  ordina- 
tion ;  that  the  bishops  are  apostles"— and  as  saying  that  "in 
Episcopacy  doth  reside  the  sublime  and  divine  power  of 
governing  the  Church,  it  being  the  sublime  top  of  the  priest- 
hood." (p.  125,  193.)  Let  not  Dr.  Barrow  be  misunderstood; 
he  says  not  one  word,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  in  favor  of 
parity.  4.  On  the  "superiority  of  the  ministerial  power  and 
j'ights"  of  the  apostles  over  elders,  we  remarked — after  showing 
the  untenableness  of  other  theories — that  it  •'  would  not  be 
questioned."  The  reviewer  starts  at  the  assertion  ;  and  well  he 
may,  for  it  leads  to  the  inevitable  demolition  of  his  theory  of 
presbyterial  "  power  and  rights."  He  recoils,  as  naturally  as 
wisely,  and  declares,  "  We  certainly,  however,  do  question  it." 
Very  well — our  proposition  is  questioned — by  whom  1  by  the 
reviewer — we  must  subtract  a  unit  from  our  sum  total — we 
stand  1000  instead  of  1001.  Mr.  Barnes  does  not  deny  it,  so  far 
as  we  perceive.  Calvin  asserts  what  we  say  "  will  noi  be 
questioned;"  the  Divines  in  the  Isle  of  Wight  assert  it; 
Matthew  Henry  asserts  it ;  Dr.  Campbell  asserts  it ;  Dr.  Miller 
asserts  it;  the  late  Dr.  Wilson  asserts  it.  AH  this  the 
reader  will  find  in  our  replies  to  Mr.  Ba^rnes.  We  now  add 
Poole's  Synopsis,  Burkitt,  and  Adam  Clarke;  which  see.  And 
we  make  our  stand  on  this  authority,  for  the  declaration  "It 
will  not  be  questioned,"  till  a  name  is  given  us  which  will 
show  that  further  inquiry  is  worth  our  trouble.  5.  To  our 
second  answer  to  Mr.  Barnes  we  refer,  likewise,  besides  to  the 
Tract,  for  a  mass  of  proofs  that  the  text  which  speaks  of  "  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery  "  is  enveloped  in  too 
much  doubt,  to  be  made  the  basis  of  any  arj^ument  on  the 
question  before  us.  Nay,  we  refer  to  this  reviewer  himself, 
who  gives  the  following  abstract  of  what  is  said  in  tlie  Tract  on 
this  passage,  without  attempting  to  refute  a  single  portion  of  it. 
He  is  content  to  put  in  italics^  and  so  produce  a  caricature 
coloring,  some  of  the  words  which  we  shall  give  in  plain  letters, 
that  the  argument  may  be  seen  unperverted  ;  he  is  content  to 
call  it  a  "wonderful  jingle  of  words,"  "inferences  perfectly 
inconsequential  and  unwarranted  ;"  but  as  to  reasoning  against 
it,  that  the  reviewer  leaves  untried.  Here  is  the  abstract;  we 
thank  him  for  it;  we  adopt  it,  except  the  unauthorized  expres- 
sions which  we  place  in  brackets,  and  have  only  to  request 
our  readers  to  go  for  its  proofs  and  illustrations  to  the  Tract 
itself. 


252  ANSWER   TO    A   THIRD    REVIKW    OP 

"  It  cannot  be  proved  that  the  Apostle,  when  he  speaks  of  the  '  hands  of 
the  presbytery '  being  l.iitl  on  Timothy,  refers  to  his  ordination  at  all.  It 
is  [perhaps,]  more  probable,  that  it  refers  to  his  being  set  apart  to  a  special 
[and  temporary]  service  :  or  it  may  be  understood  to  mean,  (if  it  does  refer 
to  his  ordination)  that  he  was  set  apart,  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  to  '  the 
presbyterate,'  that  is,  to  the  office  of  presbyter.  Yet,  even  if  this  be  supposed, 
as  the  title  of  presbyter,  as  used  in  the  New  Testament,  means  any  thing 
and  every  thing  in  ecclesiastical  office,  it  may  be  here  construed  to  mean 
something  higher  than  a  mere  presbyter,  strictly  speaking;  [therefore] 
there  is  at  least  as  much  evidence  that  it  means  a  prelate  as  a  presbyter. 
Besides,  for  any  thing  we  know  to  the  contrary,  the  'presbytery'  which 
officiated  on  this  occasion,  '  may  have  consisted  of  apostles  only,  or  of  one  or 
more  apostles  joined  with  others  ; '  as  the  Apostle  speaks,  in  another  place, 
of  having  laid  his  own  hands  on  Timothy,  if  this  be  so,  it  cannot  of 
course  be  claimed  as  a  Presbyterian,  but  was  an  apostolic  ordination.  We 
may  be  considered,  then,  as  having  proved,  that  presbyters  alone  did  not 
perform  the  ordination,  granting  the  transaction  to  have  been  one  ;  but  that 
an  apostle  actually  belonged,  or  else  was  added  for  this  purpose,  to  the  body* 
called  a  '  presbytery.'  It  is  also  worthy  of  notice,  that  St.  Paul  makes  the 
following  distinction  in  regard  to  his  own  agency  and  that  o^ others  in  this 
supposed  ordination,  'hij  the  putting  on  of  my  hands' —  ^with  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.'  Such  a  distinction  may  justly  be 
regarded  as  intimating  that  the  virtue  of  the  ordaining  act  flowed  from 
Paul ;  while  the  presbytery,  or  the  rest  of  tliat  body,  if  he  were  included  in 
it,  expressed  only  consent.  On  the  whole,  the  language  here  used  requires 
us  to  believe  that  a  minister  of  higher  rank  than  an  ordinary  presbyter 
was  present  and  officiated  in  this  ordin  ition — or  what  is  said  to  be  the 
ordination  of  Timothy.  At  any  rate,  the  Episcopal  theory  is  at  least  as 
good  a  key  as  that  of  parity  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  '  presbytery ; '  and 
considering  the  above  distinction  of  by  '  and  '  with^^  our  theory  is  obviously 
the  better  of  the  two." 

"  It  is  doubtful  whether  either  of  these  [famous]  passages  refers  to  the 
ordination  of  Timothy  or  not.  If  either  or  both  have  such  a  reference.,  they 
[*ad:iut  of  an  interpretation  quite  as  favorable  to  prelacy  as  to  parity;"] 
therefore,  as  [some]  other  passages  of  Scripture  [seem  to]  wear  an  aspect 
[more]  favorable  to  prelacy  [than  parity,]  we  are  bound  to  interpret  these — 
which  are  acknowledged  to  be  [still  more]  doubtful — in  the  same  way." 

Perfectly  astonished  we  were  to  find  such  a  train  of  argument 
against  the  chief  text  for  parity — distorted  even  as  it  was  with 
sly  additions  and  italics — in  a  defence  of  that  form  of  the  minis- 
try. And  if  all  the  readers  of  the  Biblical  Repertory  are  not  of 
the  "less-informed"  class,  there  will  certainly  be  some  partici- 
pation in  our  surprise,  among  those  who  can  distinguish  between 
an  argument  and  the  perversion  of  it,  and  who  are  not  overborne 
by  sweeping  posiliveness.  Such  readers  will  observe,  that  not  a 
syllable  of  reasoning  is  offered  against  this  abstract — not  one. 
The  grand  text  for  Presbyterians  is  left  unextricated  from  the 
dark  accumulations  q[  doubt,  which  make  it  unfit  to  be  brought 
into  the  discussion — accumulations,  which  we  have  pretty  largely 
exhibited  in  our  reply  to  Mr.  Barnes,  and  to  which  the  reviewer 
himseif  has  added,  by  this  almost  faithful  copy  of  some  of  them 

*  Our  assertion  was,  they  are  "  more  consistent  with  Episcopacy." 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY  SCRIPTURE.  253 

from  our  Tract,  with  no  weightier  objection  against  them,  than 
some  touches  of  misrepreseniaiion  and  caricature,  and  the  arro- 
gant assertion  that  they  should  "  be  driven  from  any  enlightened 
and  impartial  tribunal  on  earth,  as  unworthy  of  an  answer." 

One  of  the  main  holds  of  parity  on  Scripture  is  thus  left  unsup- 
ported by  the  reviewer.  As  little  protection  is  extended  by  him 
to  the  only  other  two  scriptural  expositions  attempted  in  its 
behalf.  The  "  transaction  at  Antioch  "  —  in  Acts  xiii.,  which  has 
often  been  represented  as  a  Presbyterian  ordination,  but  which 
Mr.  Barnes  ingenuously  declares  not  to  have  been  an  ordination 
of  any  kind,  and  which  Dr.  Miller,  in  his  late  Tract,  seems  also 
to  surrender — this  "transaction,"  though  dwelt  upon  largely  in 
"Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture,"  the  reviewer  passes  by  in 
perfect  silence.  And,  if  silence  gives  consent,  we  must  conclude 
that  he  cannot  gainsay  our  reasoning  on  the  case.  The  third 
allegation  from  Scripture,  in  favor  of  parity — that  in  the  acts 
of  ordination  there  clearly  recorded,  a  plurality  of  ordainers  offi- 
ciated— the  reviewer  notices  not  except  once,  merely  in  passing. 
The  allegation  is  good  for  nothing :  because — 1.  The  ordainers 
in  those  cases  were  all  apostles,  which  fact  gives  no  support,  but 
rather  is  opposed,  to  the  exercise  of  that  function  by  mere  pres- 
byters; 2.  The  rif^ht  to  ordain  is  recognised  as  existing  in 
Timothy  and  Titus  individually  ;  and,  3.  It  follows  that  it  exist- 
ed in  all  the  apostles  individually.  So  much  for  the  "plurality  " 
argument.  And  so  much  for  all  the  three  arguments— the  only 
three — that  our  Presbyterian  brethren  think  they  find  for  their 
ministry,  in  the  holy  volume. 

The  reviewer  would  enliijhten  us  on  the  distinction  between 
flffoffroXof  (apostle)  in  "  the  official,  and  the  laa^  or  general  sense 
of  this  term  " — adding,  that  "  the  learned  translators  of  our 
English  Bible,  though  themselves  zealous  Episcopalians,  seldom 
fail  to  recognise"  this  distinction.  Very  well.  Have  we  used 
the  word  "  apostle"  in  any  passage  of  Scripture  where  the  trans- 
lators have  not  given  it?  no,  not  once,  in  any  part  of  our  own 
argument.  We  call  Barnabas  an  apostle,  because  the  translators 
give  him  that  designation,  twice  positively,  and  twice,  at  least, 
by  implication.  (Acts  xiv.  4,  14;  Gal.  ii.  8,  9 ;  1  Cor.  ix.  5,6.) 
We  call  Silvanus  and  Timothy  apostles,  because  the  translators 
do  so.  (1  Thess.  ii.  6.)  We  call  Andronicus  and  Junia  [or 
.Tunias]  apostles,  for  the  same  reason,  under  a  fair  construction 
of  the  passage.*  (Rom.  xvi.  7.)  We  speak  of  the  "false 
apostles"  bylhat  title,  with  the  same  authority  of  the  trans- 
lators. (2  Cor.  xi.  13 ;'  Rev.  ii.  2.)  Let  the  reviewer,  and  his 
Presbyterian  friends,  adhere  to  this  rule,  as  we  have  done,  and 
there  will  be  so  much  less  remaining  of  the  controversy. 
Besides:  when  Barnabas,  Silvanus  and  Timothy  are  called 
apostles,  they  are  so  called  in  conjunction  with  Paul ;  which 
shows  the  three  former  to  have  been  apostles  ojkiallyj  as  the 

♦  Add.  fox*  this,  Buck's  Dictionary,  and  Selden,  as  quoted  by  Wolfius. 

22 


254  ANSWER   TO   A    THrao    REVIEW    OF 

latter  was.  So  with  regard  to  the  false  apostles:  these,  after 
comparing  himself  with  "  the  very  chiefest  Apostles,"  Paul  con- 
trasts with  "the  Apostles  of  Christ:"  they  claimed  this  desig- 
nation in  the  same  official  sense  that  it  belonged  to  Paul  and  all 
others  who  had  the  genuine  apostolic  character.  Instead  of 
meeting  us  on  this  view  of  the  point,  the  reviewer  argues  against 
regarding  as  apostles  those  whom  the  translators  call  "  messen- 
gers"—  a  topic  whici)  our  disquisition  has  not  touched.  On  the 
apostleship  of  Barnabas,  and  the  case  of  the  false  apostles,  he 
does  not  argue  at  all. 

We  drew  a  comparison,  in  our  Tract,  between  the  address  of 
Paul  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  and  his  epistles  to  Timothy, 
showing  that  while  the  former  were  to  "  tend,"  i.  e.  feed  and 
rule  theyZocA:,  the  latter  was  to  rule  them^  and  ordain  others 
like  them.  What  is  the  reply  of  the  reviewer  ?  He  says,  "  We 
might  have  expected  great  diversity  in  the  mode  of  address  in 
these  two  cases,  because  the  circumstances  of  the  persons 
addressed  were  essentially  different.''''  Let  this  be  noted — there 
is  "great  diversity"  between  the  address  and  the  epistles. 
What  was  the  reason  for  it?  because  "circumstances"  were 
"essentially  different:"  because  Timothy  was  an  apostle-bishop 
say  we;  because  he  was  an  "evangelist,"  says  the  reviewer— 
the  old  plea  revived  which  Mr.  Barnes  so  honestly  and  judi- 
ciously avoided.  Must  we  open  again,  then,  the  argument  on 
this  futile  plea  ?  We  deem  it  unnecessary  to  do  so.  after  what 
we  have  written  in  the  postscript  and  notes  to  the  Tract,  and  in 
our  replies  to  Mr.  Barnes.*  We  will  only  notice  one  point  in 
which  the  reviewer  has  miserably  exposed  himself.  He  goes 
to  Eusebius,  and  quotes  what  relates  to  the  migratory  part  of 
the  duties  of  evangelists,  and  their  ordaining;  but  he  omits  to 
quote — what?  the  very  hinge  of  the  appeal  to  this  father's 
authority.  These  evangelists  "obtained,"  says  Eusebius,  "the 
J^rs/s^(?pra((v  of  apostolical  succession,"  according  to  the  transla- 
tion used  for  our  Tract,  or  according  to  Mr.  Cruse,  (p.  123,) 
they  "  held  the  first  rank  ra^iv  in  the  apostolic  succession.'" 
What  shall  we  think  of  the  boldness  of  a  writer  who  makes 
such  an  omission,  with  the  Tract  before  him,  and  in  the  hands 
of  thousands  !  and  with  Eusebius  before  him,  for  he  gives  a  yet 
different  translation!  it  is  enough  to  rouse  the  honest  indigna- 
tion of  even  the  least  "informed"  of  his  readers.  And  what 
shall  we  think  of  a  writer,  who,  with  this  sin  of  omission,  a 
downright  suppressio  veri,  fresh  on  his  conscience,  swallows  it 
fearlessly,  and  then  lifts  loftily  his  head,  and  ascribes  "  evasion 


♦Scultetus,  from  Zuinglius,  regards  an  evangelist  as  a  [presbyter]  bishop  or 
pastor.  (Po.  Syn.  on  2  Tim.  iv.  5.)  Piscator  calls  Philip  the  Evangelist  merely  a 
preacher  of  the  Gospel,  "  prcBco  evangelii;"  and  regards  those  in  F^h.  iv.,  and 
2  Tim.  iv.  as  the  same.  (Do.  on  Acts  xxi.)  Aretius  on  this  passage  says,  "These 
appear  to  be  ministers  of  particular  churches,  and  teachers  of  the  schools  :  whicli 
Pantenus  was,  Basilius,  and  others."  A.  Clarke  (on  2  Tim.  iv.)  allows  evangelistfl 
to  have  beeu  only  preachers.     All  these  authorities  are  Non-episcopalian. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  255 

and  management,"  and  "  undertaking  to  dispose  of  the  plain 
record,"  to  his  opponent!  There  are  not  many  theologians 
who  would  do  all  this. 

The  reviewer  allows  a  "  great  diversity  "  between  the  address 
to  the  elders  and  the  epistles  to  Timothy;  he  allows  that  the 
"circumstances"  of  the  two  parties  were  "  essentially  different." 
But  he  alleges  that  "  Timothy  was  obviously  sent  on  a  tempo- 
rary mission,"  to  '•  rectify  disorders,"  &c.,  in  a  "  collected  and 
officered  flock."  Notice  here— the  church  of  Ephesus  was 
"  officered,"  had  presbyters— it  was  fully  constituted,  on  the 
Presbyterian  theory.  Farewell  then  to  the  old  plea,  that  it  had 
no  clergy  when  Timothy  was  placed  there,  and  that  he  was 
thus  stationed  to  ordain  clergy  for  the  church,  and  then  leave  it 
to  Presbyterial  government.'  They  had  Presbyterial  govern- 
ment already,  says  the  reviewer,  and  Timothy  was  sent  with 
evangelical  government,  so  called,  to  "rectify  disorders."— 
Now,  if  Presbyterial  government  is  liable  to  fall  into  "disorder," 
and  is  without  the  intrinsic  power  to  "  rectify  "  it— so  glaringly 
deficient,  as  to  require  the  superinduction  on  it  of  another  kind 
of  government  exercised  by  one  individual  put  in  authority 
over  the  presbyters— then  there  is  a  most  weighty  presumption 
against  its  being  the  one  chosen  by  Christ  or  his  Apostles — and 
there  is  a  presumption  equally  strong,  that  the  so-called  evan- 
gelical government,  that  of  an  officer  superior  to  presbyters, 
must  rather  have  been  the  one  they  instituted,  seeing  it  was 
used  by  them,  the  reviewer  being  judge,  as  a  remedy  for  the 
mischiefs  arising  under  the  other  supposed  form.  The  lia- 
bility of  churches  to  "disorder"  is  not  "temporary,"  it  is 
perpetual;  and  actual  "disorder"  frequently  occurs;  is  it 
probable,  then,  that  the  remedy  for  it  would  be  "temporary?" 
No;  what  the  reviewer  calls  government  by  "evangelists"  is 
necessary  in  all  ages,  and  was  to  endure  through  all  ages. 
What  else  is  meant  by  the  injunction  on  Timothy  to  'keep 
his  commandment,"  or  fulfil  his  charge,  'Hill  the  appear- 
ing of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ?"  Have  the  Presbyterians  any 
such  officer  as  Timothy— an  "  evangelist"  with  power  over  the 
presbyters  of  an  "organized  church,"  of  a  "collected  and 
officered  fiock,"  or  over  such  a  church  itself?  no,  nothing  like 
it.  They  send  their  "  evangelists  "  into  "  destitute  settlements," 
and  like  places  —  not  into  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  or 
either  of  its  presbyteries,  be  their  "disorder"  ever  so  great. 
The  reviewer  says  they  have  the  "  evangelists  "  of  Eusebius — 
we  think  otherwise — but  at  all  events  they  have  not  the  "  evan- 
gelists "  supposed  to  be  found  in  Holy  Scripture — such  officers 
as  Timothy  was.  Let  them  make  the  experiment  —  let  the 
General  Assembly  send  an  "evangelist"  into  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia— let  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  send  an  "evange- 
list "  into  either  of  its  presbyteries — to  "charge  some  that  tliey 
teach  no  other  doctrine,"  to  have  supreme  authority  in  ordain- 
ing presbyter-bishops  and  deacons,  to  "  command  and  teach  " 


356  ANSWER    TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

concerning  the  doctrines  to  be  inculcated,  to  "  receive  accusations 
against  elders,"  to  "  rebuke  "  those  of  them  "  that  sin,"  to  "  turn 
away"  authoritatively  from  the  perverse,  and  to  "keep  this 
commandment  until  the  appearing  of  Christ"  —  let  smcA  an 
"evangelist"  be  sent  into  any  synod  or  any  presbytery  of  the 
Presbyterian  communion,  and  every  member  of  them  will 
regard  the  mission  as  an  insult,  as  an  infringement  of  their 
rights,  as  an  attempt  to  "lord  it  over  God's  heritage:"  send 
your  '^evangelist,"  they  will  exclaim,  where  Eusebius  says  he 
should  go,  not  where  Scripture  declares  Timothy  to  have 
been  sent — to  "destitute  settlements,"  not  to  "organized  and 
officered"  churches.  Try  this  experiment,  and  we  shall  see 
the  fallacy  of  this  whole  Presbyterian  argument — the  alleged 
"evangelist"  of  Scripture  will  be  rejected,  as  positively  as 
bishops  are,  and  Eusebius,  as  they  would  read  him,  will  be 
honored  over  the  head  of  Paul.  The  reviewer  also  will  disco- 
ver his  egregious  mistake,  in  saying,  "  There  is  nothing  repre- 
sented in  Scripture  as  enjoined  upon  Timothy  and  Titus,  or  as 
done  by  them,  which  is  not  perfectly  consistent  with  Presbyte- 
rian principle  and  practice."  How  luckless  an  assertion  !  "  per- 
fectly consistent ! ! "     O  most  positive  reviewer ! 

Be  "evangelists"  what  they  may,  Presbyterians  do  not  send 
them  to  "  organized  and  officered "  churches,  with  authority 
over  the  clergy.  Timothy  was  sent  to  such  a  church,  the 
reviewer  being  judge,  and  with  such  authority.  Therefore 
Timothy  was  not  an  "evangelist"  of  the  Presbyterian  kind. 

Be  "  evangelists"  what  they  may,  Timothy  and  other  officers 
like  him,  were  to  exercise  such  authority  "  till  the  appearing  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  This  is  a  final  condemnation  of  the 
fancy,  that  such  an  office  as  that  of  Timothy  was  but  "  tempo- 
rary." What  answer  does  the  Presbyterian  give  the  Quaker, 
alleging  that  the  visible  encharist  was  but  a  "temporary"  insti- 
tution? he  replies,  We  are  to  "show  the  Lord's  death  till  he 
come.''''  What  answer,  then,  will  the  Presbyterian  give  the 
Episcopalian,  when,  to  confute  the  notion  that  Timothy's  office 
was  a  "temporary"  one,  he  appeals  to  the  solemn  charge  of 
Paul,  "  Keep  this  commandment  till  the  Lord  appears?"''  What 
answer  to  this !  The  argument  was  advanced  in  a  note  to  the 
Tract ;  but  neither  Mr.  Barnes  nor  this  reviewer  has  seen  fit  to 
notice  it.    "  Expressive  silence  !" 

As  to  the  objection  that  Paul  says  nothing  of  a  bishop  proper, 
or  rather  of  the  want  of  one,  to  the  Ephesian  elders — why  shouW 
he  have  done  so  ?  His  leaving  them  did  not  deprive  them  of  the 
apostolical  Episcopacy,  as  exercised  at  large  —  and  this  they 
knew  very  well.  Episcopacy  as  exercised  by  restraint,  each 
bishop  having  his  particular  diocese,  was  only  another  arrange- 
ment of  the  same  ministry.  James  was  bishop  of  the  diocese 
of  Jerusalem.  With  this  exception,  we  read,  perhaps,  of  no 
dioceses  till  the  special  connection  of  Timothy  with  Ephesus,  of 
Titus  with  Crete,  and  of  the  '  seven  angels '  with  their  respective 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY   SCRIPTURE.  257 

churches.  And  even  if  these  nine  are  not  allowed  to  have  been 
diocesans,  it  still  is  no  proof  that  they  were  not  bishops  proper. 
That  proof  we  derive  from  the  record  of  their  powers  ;  and  those 
powers  were  theirs  fully  and  for  life,  whether  exercised  in  any 
one  place  for  a  week,  or  for  "  many  months,"  or  for  "years,"  or 
till  they  descended  to  the  tomb.  They  had  the  "prelaiical  char- 
acter;" the  question  whether  they  exercised  it  under  diocesan 
restrictions,  is  one  of  no  moment  whatever  in  our  controversy 
with  Non-episcopalians — it  concerns  not  them,  but  only  our  own 
communio4i.  The  point  is — Do  we  find  bishops  proper  in  Scrip- 
ture?   And  this  our  Tract  has  fully  settled.   ' 

"  But  did  either  Timothy  or  Titus  ever,  in  a  single  instance^ 
perform  the  work  of  ordination  alone?"  asks  the  reviewer. 
Really  we  do  not  know  :  but  should  we  ever  see  the  first  epis- 
copal records  of  the  Ephesian  and  Cretan  churches,  we  will  give 
him  the  information.  These  records  being  lost,  neither  he  nor 
we  can  say  whether  they  "ever,  in  a* single  instance,'^  ordained 
alone,  or  whether  they  "ever"  ordained  at  all.  But  this  we  can 
say — the  power  of  ordaining  was  given  to  them,  and  to  them 
individually — '-Lay  thoit  hands  suddenly  on  no  man"  —  "the 
same  commit  ihoic  to  faithful  men"  —  "that  thou  shouldest 
ordain  elders  in  every  city  "  —  "this  charge  I  commit  unto  thee^ 
Such  scriptures,  one  would  think,  are  plain  enough.  Not,  how- 
ever, to  the  reviewer.  He  replies,  "  We  know  that  Mark  was 
with  Timothy,  and  that  Zenas  and  Apollos  were  with  Titus.. 
Who  can  tell  but  that  these  ecclesiastical  companions  took  part 
in  every  ordination  ?  "  Without  meaning  to  be  over  positive,  ice 
"can  tell"  the  reviewer  about  this  matter,  provided  he  will  be 
content  with  evidence  only,  without  theory.  Thus :_  when  Paul 
was  in  Rome  the  first  time,  he  expected  Mark  to  go  from  thence 
to  Colosse ;  after  this,  he  placed  Timothy  at  Ephesus  ;  and  yet. 
later,  he  desired  Timothy  to  "  take  Mark,  and  bring  him  "  with, 
him  to  Rome,  where  Paul  again  was,  (Col.  iv.  10;  1  Tim.  i.  3; 
2  Tim.  iv.  11) — "in  thy  way  call  on  Mark,'^  says  Macknight — 
"take  the  first  opportunity  of  engaging  the  com[)any  of  Mark," 
says  Doddridge  :  the  evidence  is,  that  Mark  was  to  go  to  Colosse,, 
and  that  Timothy  went  to  Ephesus — separ-ate  stations — and  that 
Timothy  was  to  "  take  Mark,"  probably  either  on  his  way,  or  by 
sending  for  him,  in  again  visiting  Rome.  Does  this  evidence 
justify  the  positive  assertion,  "  we  know  that  Mark  was  with 
Timothy?"  or  the  insinuation  that  the  former  "took  part"  with 
the  latter  "in  every  ordination  ?"  Surely  not.  Thus  again, 
concerning  Titus :  do  we  "  know  "  that  Zenas  and  Apollos  were 
with  him  ?  The  only  evidence  is  this  directron  ta Titus,  (iii.  13,) 
"Bring  Zenas  the  lawyer  and  Apollos  on  their  journey  dili- 
gently ;"  this  "journey  "or  voyage,  is  interpreted  of  one  which 
began  before  their  reaching  Crete,  on  their  way  to  some  further 
point;  so  say  Doddridge  and  Macknight,  and  no  commentator 
within  our  reach  says  otherwise ;  of  course  they  were  "with 
Titus  "  only  while  they  halted  on  their  journey,  and  could  not 
22* 


258  ANSWER    TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OP 

have  "taken  part'-  in  his  "every  ordination,"  if  they  did  in  even 
one.  Timothy  and  Titus  had  the  power  to  ordain  singly,  with- 
out assistants :  whether  they  allowed  the  other  clergy  to  take  part 
with  them  "ever,  in  a  single  instance,"  or  in  many  instances, 
or  as  a  general  rule,  we  know  not ;  neither  is  it  of  any  conse- 
quence. Perfect  as  was  the  ordaining  power  in  them,  and  per- 
fect as  it  is  in  their  successors  "  till  the  appearing  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  it  is  proper  to  regulate  the  exercise  of  it,  lest  it  be 
abused ;  hence  the  regulation  which  requires  a  plurality  to  laj- 
on  hands,  except  in  the  case  of  deacons,  who  however  are 
"presented"  by  a  priest,  and  who  preach  only  in  Virtue  of  a 
license  given  and  revocable  by  the  bishop.*  Sut  were  we  to 
take  the  reviewer  at  his  word,  in  the  case  of  Zenas  and  Apollos, 
he  would  find  that  he  has  weakened  his  cause  in  one  part,  while 
attempting  to  strengthen  it  in  another.  Presbyterians  generally 
argue  that  there  were  no  clergy  in  Crete  when  Titus  was  left 
there,  and  that  he  was  to  ordain  them  as  an  "  evangelist,"  for 
lack  of  a  "  presbytery  "  on  the  island.  The  reviewer,  however, 
lisis  foiond  a  Cretan  "  presbytery  "  —  Zenas  and  Apollos — both  of 
them,  we  doubt  not,  very  capable  men.  Yet  the  superior  officer, 
Titus,  is  placed  there,  to  eclipse  the  "  presbytery,"  and  take  the 
government  and  ordinations  in  his  own  hands!  Very  strange, 
on  "Presbyterian  principles!" 

The  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus  "  are  addressed  to  them; 
individually  "  —  this  the  reviewer  allows.  But  he  does  not  think 
that  this  circumstance  "  affects  his  reasoning"  in  behalf  of  parity. 
Let  us  examine  his  argument  on  this  point. —  "  These  men  went 
to  Ephesus  and  Crete  as  a  kind  of  special  envoys,"  and  the 
epistles  were  "the  system  of  instructions  addressed  to  them 
persanally : "  this  must  be  noted.  Next, — "  a  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation never  occurs  without  addressing  to  the  newly-ordained 
minister  language  of  precisely  the  same  import:"  then  the 
minister,  we  must  infer,  is  "a  kind  of  special  envoy"  to  some 
"officered"  church,  not  a  mere  pastoral  elder !  his  office  must 
correspond  with  his  "instructions t"  and  he  is  instructed  per- 
sonally to  "charge  some"  presbyters  "that  they  teach  no  other 
doctrine;"  personally  he  is  instructed  about  ordaining,  and 
receiving  accusations  against  presbyters !  if  not,  if  he  is  told 
how  to  do  these  things  in  conjunction  with  others,  not  personallyy 
then  it  is  deception  to  say,  that  "language"  is  addressed  to  him 
^^  of  precisely  the  same  import"  with  that  addressed  to  Timothy 
and  Titus.  Further:  our  argument  from  this  personal  mode  of 
address,  says  the  reviewer,  "  will  prove  too  much,  for  it  will 
prove  that  these  evangelists  alone  were  empowered  to  preach 

*  By  the  way,  what  are  %he  licentiates  of  Presbyterians,  but  a  quasi  sort  of  preach- 
ing deacons— cultivating,  under  a  revocable  license,  the  "great  boldness"  in  declar- 
ing '•'  the  faitli "  —  and  "  purdiasing  to  themselves  tlie  good  degree  "  of  presbyters  T 
How  expressive  an  acknowledgment,  though  a  silent  one,  of  the  soundness  of  the 
Episcopal  construction  of  i  Tim.  iii.  13  !  Ti^is  is  an  afler-thought,  or  it  would  have 
been  introduced  in  the  proper  place. 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE.  259 

and  pray"^^  in  Ephesus  and  Crete:  the  remark  is  probably  inad- 
vertent: for  not  once  is  either  Timothy  or  Titus  directed  ta 
"pray;"  not  once,  though  the  former  is  desired  to  regulate  the 
pubJic  prayers,  and  the  charge  to  superintend  the  "  teaching  "  oi 
others,  shows  tiiat  others  besides  Timoiiiy  and  Titus  were  to. 
"  preach  ;"  such,  for  example,  as  the  •'  elders  who  labored  in  the 
word  and  doctrine:"  the  reviewer  ought  not  to  nod  with  his 
Bible  before  him.  His  last  reply  to  our  argument  from  the  per- 
sonal style  of  the  epistles,  is,  that*'  no  evangelist  is  ever  sent  forth 
by  [his]  church  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  and  setting  in 
order  churches,  without  special  instructions,  in  the  form  of  a 
letter,  and  addressed  to  him  personally  :  "  the  alleged  evangelists 
of  Eusebius  again !  not  officers  like  Timothy,  sent  to  churches 
"  collected,  organized,  officered,  regular !  "  To  evangelists  such 
as  Eusebius  is  said  to  describe,  any  thing  may  be  addressed, 
in  any  way,  without  affecting  the  scriptural  argument  for ' 
Episcopacy. 

He  adds,  that  nothing  is  said  to  the  clergy  of  Ephesus  and 
Crete  "about  prelates,  their  rights."  &c.,  and  "they  are  never 
even  once  reminded  that  it  is  their  duty  to  be  docile  and  obedient 
to  their  proper  diocesan."  Now,  there  is  just  as  little  said  about 
the  '<  special  envoy,"  and  of  docility  and  obedience  to  him,  as 
about  the  "  prelate,"  and  dutiful  submission  to  his  godly  injunc- 
tions: so  that  if  the  objection  of  the  reviewer  is  worth  any 
thing,  it  demolishes  the  superior  "rights"  of  Timothy  and 
Titus  in  every  shape!  he  throws  down  his  own  theory  to 
make  a  barricade  for  annoying  ours !  But  he  is  wholly  in 
error.  A  "  prelate  "  is  largely  and  plainly  described  in  these 
epistles — a  church  officer  higher  than  all  the  other  church 
officers  about  him.  And  the  charge  to  him  to  govern  is,  con- 
versely, a  charge  to  them  to  be  governed,  to  be  "  docile  and 
obedient"  to  him.  In  short,  these  epistles  are  the  broad  and 
clear  credentials  of  Episcopacy-^of  the  "rights"  of  apostle- 
bishops — and,  by  consequence,  of  the  inferior  privileges  of 
presbyter-bishops  and  deacons.  They  show  what  these  three 
orders  were  in  apostolic  days,  and  what  they  are  to  continue  ta 
be  "  till  the  appearing  of  our  Lord." 

The  reviewer  says  that  we  have  not  "  proved  that  the  second 
epistle  to  Timothy  was  addressed  to  him  at  Ephesus  at  all." 
No;  we  did  not  in  the  Tract:  nor  is  it  necessary  to  do  so  for 
the  episcopal  argument,  though  the  point  has  a  bearing  on  the 
diocesan  argument;  for  there  were,  and  may  always  be,  apostle- 
bishops  or  prelates  not  diocesans;  just  as  there  are  missionary 
presbyters  without  parishes,  or  schoolmaster  presbyters,  or 
"amateur"  presbyters,  as  they  have  lately  been  most  iiappily 
dubbed.  But  to  satisfy  the  reviewer,  or  at  least  our  readers, 
that  Timothy  was  in  Ephesus,  or  had  charge  of  it,  wlien  the 
second  epistle  was  written  to  him,  we  offer  the  following  rea- 
sons:— 1.  He  was  in  that  city  at  the  date  of  the  first  epistle, 
A.  D.  65  J  and  there  is  no  intimation  thai  he  had  left  h  at  the 


260  ANSWER    TO    A   THIRD    REVIEW    OF 

date  of  the  second,  A.  D.  66;*  this  throws  the  burden  of  proof 
on  those  who  deny  that   he  was  there   at   the  latter  period. 

2.  Timothy  being  placed  at  Ephesus  to  remedy  great  "  disor- 
ders," it  is  not  probable  he  would  leave  it  before  the  end  of  a 
year,  when  the  second  epistle  was  written:  we  here  meet  the 
reviewer  on  his  own  ground  ;  even  if  his  mission  were  a 
"temporary"  one,  he  could  not  have  accomplished  it  so  soon. 

3.  Paul,  as  was  not  unusual  with  him,  names  the  messenger  by 
whom  he  transmits  the  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  and  says 
that  he  had  despatched  him  to  Ephesus:  "  Tychicus  have  I 
sent  to  Ephesus  :"  this  argument  is  indeed  cavilled  at  by  some, 
but  those  who  will  compare  the  passage  with  those  referred  to 
below,  will,  we  think,  deem  it  conclusive  in  our  favor.  (2  Tim. 
iv.  12.  See  also  Rom.  xvi.  1;  1  Cor.  iv.  17;  xvi.  10;  2  Cor. 
viii.  16-18;  Eph.  vi.  21 ;  Philip,  ii.  25  ;  Col.  iv.  7-9;  Philem.  12; 
also  1  Pet.  v.  12.)  4.  Paul,  in  the  second  epistle,  desires  Timo- 
thy to  salute  the  family  of  Onesiphorus ;  and  the  residence  af 
this  excellent  person  was  in  Ephesus,  though  he  himself  ap- 
pears to  have  been  absent  from  it  at  that  time.  (2  Tim.  iv.  19; 
comp.  ch.  i.  16-18.)  In  Acts  xix.  33,  we  find  a  certain  Alex- 
ander at  Ephesus;  and  in  the  second  epistle  we  find  Timothy 
put  on  his  guard  against  the  same  person:  why?  because 
Timothy's  sphere  of  duty  then  included  that  city.  6.  In  the 
first  epistle,  when  Timothy  was  confessedly  at  Ephesus,  Paul 
mentions  this  Alexander,  and  also  Hymeneus,  as  unfaithful 
ministers ;  and  in  the  second  he  again  names  those  very  per- 
sons to  Timothy  in  the  same  character;  which  implies  that 
Timothy  was  still  in  authority  in  that  church.  (1  Tim.  i.  20; 
2  Tim.  ii.  17 ;  iv.  14.)  7.  Against  this  Alexander,  a  resident  of 
Ephesus,  though  just  then  in  Rome,  opposing  virulently  the 
persecuted  Paul,  that  apostle  specially  cautions  Timothy  in  the 
second  epistle;  from  which  fact  we  gather — that  Timothy  was 
to  retitrn  to  Ephesus,  after  visiting  Paul  in  Rome— and  was  to 
continue  in  Ephesus,  when  Alexander  had  come  back,  and  had 
resumed  his  actual  residence  there.  (2  Tim.  iv.  14,  15,  9.) 
Such  are  our  proafs  that  Timothy  was  in  Ephesus,  or  had 
charge  of  its  church  at  the  date  of  the  second  epistle.  And  we 
think  that  the  man  who  asks  more,  for  a  point  of  sacred  his- 
tory not  positively  recorded,  is  unreasonable.  Out  of  the 
sacred  records,  the  whole  current  of  antiquity  is  weM  known  to 
be  in  our  favor.  Nor  is  there  a  particle  of  evidence  against  us. 
The  New  Testament  leaves  Timothy  in  charge  of  the  Ephesian 
church ;  no  subsequent  authority  removes  him  thence ;  and 
in  this  state  of  things  we  recognise  plainly  a  diocese,  and 
its  diocesan  head — not  only  Episcopacy,  but  diocesan  Episco- 
pacy also. 

As  to  the  "  angels "  of  the  seven  Asiatic  churches,  the  re- 
viewer is  as  unfortunate  in  discussing  their  case,  as  in  the  rest 

♦  We  take  ihe  common  chroaolt^y.  , 


EPISCOPACY   TESTED    BY   SCRIPTDRE.  261 

of  his  remarks.  He  mentions  the  theory,  thaCthe  term  "  angel  '■* 
means  "  the  collective  ministry  in  those  churches  respectively" 
— a  mere  theory,  and  too  fanciful  to  be  worih  an  argument; 
for  it  may  as  well  be  extended  to  the  "  collective  "  communicants, 
a  theory  too  which  decides  nothing ;  for  the  "  collective  minis- 
try "  may  as  justly  be  said  to  have  included  a  bishop  proper  as 
to  have  been  without  one*  But  further,  asks  the  reviewer, 
why  are  not  the  "angels"  called  apostles  or  bishops,  if  they 
were  such  ?  For  a  very  sufficient  reason,  we  reply.  These 
"angels"  were  addressed  just  at  the  time,  when,  as  we  learn 
from  other  sources,  the  name  of  apostle  was  about  being  relin- 
quished to  those  individuals  so  called  in  Scripture,  and  the 
name  bishop  was  in  transitu  from  the  second  order  to  the  first; 
the  forujer  title  was  losing,  or  beginning  to  lose,  its  more 
general  application ;  and  the  latter  had  not  yet  acquired  its 
final  appropriation.  Those  who  allow  the  due  weight  to  the 
Non-episcopal  authorities,  Videlius  for  example,  not  to  mention 
those  in  our  own  ranks,  who  regard  it  as  an  historical  fact, 
that  the  name  bishop  was  taken  from  the  second  order  and 
given  to  the  first  about  this  period,  will  see  in  these  scriptures  a 
beautiful  adminiculation  of  the  testimony  of  that  fact.    The 

♦  Polycarp  was  the  bishop  or  "  angel "  of  the  church  in  Smyrna,  a  few  years 
after  the  date  of  the  Revelation,  perhaps  at  that  time ;  and  he  is  identified  with 
hie  cliurch  by  Ignatius,  just  as  the  "angel"  is,  by  "the  Spirit,"  in  tl)is  part 
of  Scripture.  Ignatius  says  to  the  Smyrneans,  (ii.)  "It  is  fitting  that  for  the 
honor  of  God,  your  church  should  appoint  some  worthy  delegate,  who  being 

come   as   far  as   Syria  ,  may    rejoice  with  them that  ye  send  some  one 

from  you."  And  to  Polycarp,  (7.)  "It  will  be  fit,  most  worthy  Polycarp,  to 
call  a  council  of  the  most  godly  men,  and  choose  some  one  whom  ye  particularly 

love and  to  appomt  him  to  go  into  Syria" — and  in  the  conclusion,  "  I  salute 

him  who  shall  be  thought  worthy  to  be  sejit  by  you  into  Syria.  Grace  be  ever 
with  him,  and  with  Polycarp,  who  serids  him."  This  individual  ruler  of  the 
church  at  Smyrna  is  the  one  who  distinctively  and  responsibly  "sends"  the 
messenger,  though  the  "church,"  and  even  a  "council  "  of  its  members,  including 
doubtless  some  of  its  clergy,  the  "  presbyters  and  deacons  "  several  times  men- 
tioned, unite  in  the  mission.  What  better  uninspired  key  can  be  found  for  the 
epistle  of  our  Lord  to  the  "angel  of  the  church  in  Smyrna  1"  and  of  course  for 
all  the  seven?  In  regard  to  tlie  genuineness  of  the  smaller  epistles  of  Ignatius,  a 
pl^in  argument  may  perhaps  be  sufficient  for  those  who  are  not  in  the  habit  of 
learned  investigations.  There  are  only  two  sets  of  works  ascribed  to  Ignatius,  the 
smaller  epistles  and  the  larger,  which  are  generally,  if  not  universally,  allowed 
to  be  interpolated,  i.  e.  tc^have  received  spurious  additions.  Now,  it  is  exceedingly 
improbable  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  a  work  of  aulliority  should  be  counterfeited 
more  than  once — so  counterfeited  as  to  make  two  separate  works  largely  spurious, 
besides  the  genuine.  We  do  not  recollect  an  instance  of  the  kind.  There  is 
difficulty  in  making  current  any  one  counterfeit  book,  because  the  genuine  one 
contradicts  it.  But  when  this  attempt  has  succeeded,  and  the  true  and  false 
copies  are  both  current;  then  the  difficulty  of  a  further  attempt  is  doubled,  on 
mere  arithmetical  principles  ;  and  the  improbability  of  its  being  made  is  much 
more  than  doubled,  since  there  can  be  little  motive  to  adduce  an  author  lor  a 
third  view  of  a  subject  concerning  which  he  has  expressed,  or  been  made  to 
express,  two  views  already — such  an  author  loses  his  authority,  unhss  his 
genuine  work  be  restored  to  its  exclusive  rights.  As  then  tlie  larger  epistles 
nrc  allowed  to  he  spurious,  it  is  probable  in  the  highest  degree,  morally  cer- 
tain, that  the  smaller  epistles  are  not  spurious,  but  are  the  genuine  work  of 
Ignatius. 


262  ANSWER    TO    A    THIRD    REVIEW    OP 

dignitaries  in  question  were  addressed,  when  it  was  somewhat 
too  late  to  call  them  apostles,*  and  too  soon  to  call  them 
bishops,  particularly  as  the  latter  word  had  a  different  meaning 
in  the  Scriptures  already  written.  Another  designation  there- 
fore is  given  them — they  are  called  "angels;"  and  the  kind  of 
officers  addressed  is  left  to  be  inferred  from  the  powers  and 
distinctions  ascribed  to  them.  These  remarks  are  a  sufficient 
reply  to  the  argument  of  the  reviewer  on  this  topic;  these 
remarks,  with  what  is  said  in  our  Tract.  But  we  must  show 
him  a  couple  of  ludicrous  mistakes  into  which  he  has  fallen. 
He  quotes  from  the  address  to  the  "  angel"  at  Smyrna,  "  Some 
of  you  I  [^the  Saviour']  will  cast  into  prison  " — the  passage  actu- 
ally reads,  "  Behold,  the  devil  shall  cast  some  of  you  into  pri- 
son ! "  Again :  he  regards  two  at  least  of  the  "  angels  "  as  having 
long  been  in  a  state  of  "  lukewarmness  and  sloth,"  and  adds, 
"it  is  by  no  means  likely  that,  under  the  eye  of  inspired  Apos- 
tles, men  already  in  this  state  of  moral  depression  would  have 
been  selected  to  preside  over  churches:"  this  was  in  the  year 
96;  the  "inspired  Apostles"  were  long  since  dead,  except 
St.  John;  and  he  was  in  Patmos,  when  these  epistles  to  the 
"angels"  were  revealed  to  him  by  our  Lord!  At  what  lime 
these  "angels"  were  respectively  placed  over  their  churches,  we 
know  not;  if  by  "inspired  Apostles,"  it  must  have  been,  say 
some  twenty  or  thirty  years  before.  If,  however,  they  were  not 
so  placed  by  "  inspired  Apostles,"  then  we  have  our  Lord  himself 
recognising  the  Episcopacy  of  men  consecrated  by  apostles 
uninspired. 

Contrary  to  the  rule  which  we  had  hoped  would  be  adhered  to  in  thi» 
controversy,  the  reviewer  has  strayed  from  Scripture,  as  he  did  with  regard 
to  deacons,  and  carried  the  question  concerning  bishops  into  the  writings 
of  the  fathers.  Our  lore  in  this  department  is  of  very  moderate  amount ; 
but  it  fortunately  does  not  require  much  to  answer  this  reviewer.  What  he 
ascribes  to  Ignatius  is  not  correct — that  that  father  declares,  "  again  and 
again,  that  the  presbyters  succeed  in  the  place  of  the  Apostles"— such  lan- 
guage occurs  nowhere  in  Ignatius.  He  never  says  that  presbyters 
*•'  succeed "  the  Apostles,  nor  does  he  compare  them  to  the  Apostles, 
except  under  the  reser\'ation  that  the  bishop  is  compared  to  a  higher 

♦  The  false  "apostles  "  mentioned  CRev.  ii-  2,)  would  naturally  persist  in  claim- 
ing the  old  title:  that  of  bishops  would  not  yet  have  served  their  purpose.  It  is 
perhaps  worthy  of  remark,  tiiat  the  word  "  apostle  "  occurs  nowhere  in  the  gospel 
of  St.  John  ;  "disciple"  being  generally  suiastituted  for  it.  Neither  does  it  occur  in 
his  epistles  :  nor  in  the  Revelation  ;  except  in  this  passage,  where  it  is  applied  to 
the  impostors,  and  in  chap,  xviii.  20,  where,  ingrafted  into  an  exultation  of  the 
latter  days,  it  refers  (as  in  xxi.  14.)  to  the  inspired  foundei-s  of  Christianity. 
All  these  writings  belong  to  the  clase  of  the  first  century.  By  not  calling  the 
"  ansels  "  either  apostles  or  bishops,  St.  John  conformed  to  the  then  unsettled  use 
of  those  words.  And  by  calling  the  twelve  "disciples"  only,  instead  of  apostles, 
he  avoided  giving  them  a  distinctive  title  which  he  withheld  from  their  official 
compeers,  the  "  angels."  We  build  nothing  on  these  facts  and  explanations ;  but 
they  certainly  harmonize  well  with  the  historical  declaration,  that  ministers  oi  the 
episcopal  grade  were  originally  called  apostles  ;  but  as  the  first  century  was  passing 
into  the  second,  that  name  was  relinquished  and  that  of  bishops  assumed. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  263 

authority.  As  an  Oriental,  he  uses  strong  figures;  but  his  meaning 
cannot  be  mistaken  by  any  candid  reader;  and  for  such  we  quote  what  he 
does  say,  the  passages  of  which  the  reviewer  gives  this  perverted  represen- 
tation.   We  use  Archbishop  Wake's  translation,  revised  by  Mr.  Chevallier. 

"I  exhort  you  that  ye  study  to  do  all  things  in  a  divine  concord: 
your  bishop  presiding  in  the  place  of  God,  and  your  presbyters  in  the 
place  of  the  council  of  the  Apostles,  and  your  deacons,  most  dear  to  mc, 
being  intrusted  with  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ."  (Magnes.  6.) 

"  It  is  therefore  necessary  that  ye  do  nothing  without  your  bishop, 
even  as  ye  are  wont:  and  that  ye  be  also  subject  to  the  presbytery  as 
to  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ,  our  hope,  in  whom  if  we  walk,  we  shall 
be  found  (in  him.)  The  deacons  also,  as  being  the  (ministers)  of  the 
mysteries  of  Jesus  Christ,  must  by  all  means  please  all."  (Tral.  2.) 

"  In  like  manner,  let  all  reverence  the  deacons  as  Jesus  Christ,  and 
the  bishop  as  the  Father;  and  the  presbyters  as  the  council  of  God, 
and  the  assembly  of  the  Apostles.  Without  these  there  is  no  church." 
(Tral.  3.) 

"  See  that  ye  all  follow  your  bishop,  as  Jesus  Christ  the  Father ;  and 
the  presbyters  as  the  Apostles ;  and  reverence  the  deacons  as  the  command 
of  God.  Let  no  one  do  any  thing  which  belongs  to  the  Church  separately 
from  the  bishop."  (Smyrn.  8.) 

"  Fleeing  to  the  Gospel,  as  to  the  flesh  of  Christ,  and  to  the  Apostles 
as  unto  the  presbytery  of  the  Church.  Let  us  also  love  the  prophets, 
forasmuch  as  they  also  proclaimed  the  coming  of  the  Gospel,  and  hoped  in 
Christ,  and  waited  for  him."  (Philad.  5.) 

Here  are  all  the  passages  on  which  the  reviewer  could  possibly  have 
based  his  assertion— all — and  they  neither  say  nor  intimate  any  thino- 
about  "  succession."  That  word  is  used  for  either  succession  in  doctrin^ 
or  succession  by  vicarious  ordination,  both  of  which,  when  absolute  predi- 
cates, imply  supreme  authority  in  the  successors.  And  Ignatius  would 
have  written  like  a  simpleton,  if  he  had  ascribed  apostolic  succession  to  the 
presbyters,  when  he  declared,  as  he  did  in  these  extracts,  the  bishop  to  be 
superior  to  them.  But  he  says  not  a  word  of  the  succession  of  presby- 
ters ;  on  the  contrary,  he  invariably,  not  only  in  these,  but  in  many  other 
passages,  places  the  bishop  above  that  class  of  ministers,  as  well  as  above 
the  deacons :  and  this  is  fatal  to  the  notion  of  Presbyterial  succession. 
The  reviev/er  has  staked  his  reputation,  in  more  than  one  sense,  in  the 
bold  assertion  he  has  here  made. 

Just  as  little  to  the  purpose  is  his  allusion  to  Clement  of  Rome.  He 
speaks  of  presbyters,  says  the  reviewer,  as  "the  rulers  of  the  Church." 
Not  exactly — only  as  the  rulers  of  "the  Jlock  of  Christ;"  he  never 
intimates  that  they  ruled  the  clergy.  On  the  contrary,  he  addresses  a 
Christian  church — that  at  Corinth — to  this  effect,  on  the  subject  of  their 
"  holy  offerings."     And  the  address  is  a  full  recognition  of  Episcopacy. 

"God   hath   himself  ordained   by  his  supreme  will   both  where  and 

by  what  -persons  they  are  to  be  performed For  to  the  chief  priest 

his  peculiar  offices  are  given,  and  to  the  priests  their  own  place  is 
appointed,  and  to  the  Levites  appertain  their  proper  ministries.  And  the 
layman  is  confined  within  the  bounds  of  what  is  commanded  to  laymen. 
Let  every  one  of  you,  brethren,  bless  God  in  his  proper  station,  with  a 
good  conscience,  and  with  all  gravity,  not  exceeding  the  rule  of  his  service 
that  is  appointed  unto  him."  (40,  41.) 

If  Christians  had  not  their  chief  priest,  their  priests,  and  their  Levites, 
there  would  be  no  sense  in  this  admonition  of  Clement's, 

The  reviewer's  appeal  to  Irenajus  is  as  unfortunate— he  "repeatedly 


264  ANSWER   TO   A   THIRD   REVIEW   OP 

speaks  of  presbyters  as  being  successors  of  the  Apostles,"  True ;  but 
what  sort  of  presbyters  'I  for  the  word,  as  we  have  seen,  has  a  general 
meaning,  including  apostles  and  bishops  proper,  as  well  as  those  who  are 
only  presbyters  proper.  Irenseus  calls  the  presbyters  of  whom  he  writes, 
"bishops,"  and  allows  only  one  of  them  at  a  time  in  a  city  or  district,  even 
in  the  large  city  of  Rome ;  which  shows  them  to  have  been  apostle  bishops, 
superior  to  the  presbyter-bishops.     Let  him  speak  for  himself. 

"  We  can  enumerate  those  who  were  appointed  by  the  Apostles  bishops 

in  the  churches,  and  their  successors  even  to  us whom  they  [the 

Apostles]  left  their  successors,   delivering  to  them  their  own  place  qf 

government The   blessed  Apostles,  therefore,    founding  and 

instructing  the  church  [of  Rome,]  delivered  to  Linus  [one  man]  the  admi- 
nistration of  its  bishopric.  Paul  makes  mention  of  this  Linus  in  the 
epistles  to  Timothy.  To  him  succeeded  Anacletus,  [otic  man,]  after  him, 
in  the  third  place  from  the  Apostles,  Clement  [one  man]  obtained  the 

bishopric To  this  Clement  succeeded  Evaristus  [one  man ;]  and 

to  Evaristus,  Alexander  [one  man ;]  and  then  Sixtus  [one  man]  was 
appointed,  the  sixth  [individual]  from  the  Apostles ;  and  after  him  Teles- 
phorus  [one  man,]  who  likewise  suffered  martyrdom  most  gloriously  ;  and 
then  Hyginus  [one  man,]  then  Pius  [one  man,]  after  whom  Anicetus 
[one  man.]  And  when  Soter  [one  man]  had  succeeded  Anicetus,  now 
Eleutherus  [one  jnan]  has  the  bishopric  in  the  twelfth  place  from  the 
Apostles.  By  this  order  [or  series  ra^ci]  and  instruction,  that  tradition 
in  the  Church  which  is  from  the  Apostles,  [meaning  Scripture,  see 
/.  3,  c.  1,]  and  the  preaching  of  the  truth  hath  come  even  unto  us." 
(L.  3,  c.  3.) 

"  We  ought  to  hear  those  presbyters  in  the  Church  who  have  the 
succession,  as  we  have  shown,  from  the  Apostles :  who  with  the  succession 
of  the  episcopate  received  the  gift  of  truth,  accordirig  to  the  good  pleasure 
oftheFather."  (L.  4,  C.43.) 

If  Irenaeus  had  meant  presbyters  proper,  could  he  have  said,  as  he 
does,  that  he  could  "  enumerate  those  who  were  appointed  by  the  Apostles 
bishops  in  the  churches,  and  their  successors  even  to  us" — "the  succes- 
sions of  all  the  churches'?"— each  and  every  such  presbyter,  who  had 
officiated  in  each  and  every  supposed  ordaining  "presbytery"  in  all  the 
world !  say  some  twenty  to  fifty  thousand  of  theni !  The  idea  is  prepos- 
terous. IN'o :  he  intended  one  minister  in  each  city  or  district— that  one 
who  was  called  bishop — that  one  to  whom  the  "  Apostles  "  and  their 
successors  "  delivered  their  own  place  of  government  "  And  that  this  one 
man  had  presbyters  under  him  is  self  evident  in  the  case  of  Rome,  which 
is  denominated  by  Irenasus  "the  greatest  church;"  implying  that  it  had 
many  congregations  and  pastors.  It  is  proved  also,  by  testimony,  in  the 
case  of  Poiycarp,  who  is  declared  by  this  father  to  have  been  "  appointed 
by  the  Apostles,  bishop  of  the  church  of  Smyrna,"  and  who  commences  liis 
epistle  thus—"  Poiycarp  and  the  presbyters  that  are  with  him."  Of  this 
epistle  Irenaeus  speaks  ;  and  we  thus  learn,  as  from  himself,  what  kind  of 
ecclesiastical  officers  he  referred  to  as  "  successors  to  the  Apostles."  They 
were  Episcopal  bishops. 

We  go  no  further  into  the  extrarscriptural  argument,  be  it  noticed, 
than  we  are  led  by  the  reviewer.  The  reader  who  wishes  to  prosecute 
this  branch  of  the  subject,  will  find  it  ably  treated  in  Potter  and  Slater, 
whose  works  have  been  reprinted  in  this  country,  and  in  Bowden  and 
Cooke,  as  re-published  in  the  "  Works  on  Episcopacy,"  by  the  JSew-Yorjk 
Protestant  Episcopal  Press.  The  Answer  of  Dr.  Cooke  to  a  Review  of  his 
essay  in  the  Biblical  Repertory,  should  also  be  consulted. 


EPISCOPACY    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  265 

Of  the  peroraiion  of  the  reviewer,  his  last  four  paragraphs, 
we  need  only  say  that  it  is  a  mere  tissue  of  posiliveness.  We  have 
neither  the  taste  nor  the  talent  for  this  kind  of  effusion,  or  we 
could  take  these  paragraphs,  and  send  them  back  upon  him, 
mutatis  mutandis — as  indeed  we  could  do  with  no  small  por- 
tion of  his  whole  article.  It  is  throughout  so  replete  with  mere 
assertions,  pronounced  in  the  most  dogmatical  tone,  that  one 
need  only  change  the  things  asserted,  and  it  would  be  quite  as 
good  for  Episcopacy  as  it  is  against  it — nay,  for  aught  we  can 
perceive,  a  little  ingenuity  in  this  way,  would  make  it  a  tirade 
for  or  against  Popery,  for  or  against  Independency,  for  or  against 
monarchy,  for  o:  against  republicanism,  for  or  against  transub- 
stantiaiion,  for  or  against  the  Hebrew  points,  for  or  against  any 
thing  ever  disputed  among  men.  As  to  the  small  amount  of 
argument  it  does  contain,  we  trust  we  have  sufficiently  disposed 
of  it.  That  such  a  review  has  done  our  Tract  no  injury,  may, 
■we  hope,  be  aflEirmed  by  us,  without  incurring  the  charge  of 
egotism.  We  even  indulge  ourselves  in  the  belief,  that  that 
little  production  has  come  out  of  the  ordeal  prepared  for  it 
stronger  than  it  was  before — stronger  we  say,  because  the  fact 
certainly  adds  to  its  strength,  that  the  learned  "Association  of 
Gentlemen  in  Princeton,"  have  found  nothing  better  against  it 
than  this  very  dictatorial  but  very  hftrmless  review. 

23  H.U.O. 


DISSERTATION 

ON   THE 

FALSE  APOSTLES  MENTIONED  IN  SCRIPTURE. 


The  case  of  the  "  false  apostles  "  has  an  important  bearing 
on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy.  We  argue  conclusively,  from 
their  case — that  others  besides  the  special  witnesses  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  were  apostles — that  there  were  many  apostles 
proper  besides  these,  the  thirteen — that  inspiration  was  not 
an  essential  qualification  for  the  apostleship — and  that  the  ordi- 
nary apostolic  office  was  extensively  recognised,  both  previously 
and  so  late  as  the  year  96,  when  of  the  thirteen  none  survived 
but  St.  John.  These  facts  being  established,  it  will  be  suffi- 
ciently clear  that  that  office  pervaded  the  Church  at  large,  and 
Avas  to  be  permanent. 

Mention  is  made  of  these  impostors  in  three  passages  of  the 
New  Testament. 

"  For  such  are  false  apostles  ^i.tv5a-KoaTo\oi,  deceitful  workers,  trans- 
forming themselves  into  the  apostles  of  Christ.  And  no  marv^el;  for 
Satan  himself  is  transformed  into  an  angel  of  light.  Therefore  it  is  no 
great  thing  if  his  ministers  also  be  transformed  as  the  ministers  of  right- 
eousness ;  whose  end  shall  be  according  to  their  works."  (2  Cor. 
xi,  13-15.)  The  word  ''ministers"  is  SmKovot. 

"■  'I'hou  hast  tried  them  which  say  they  are  apostles  aicearoXovs,  and  are 
not,  and  hast  found  them  liars,  xptvSeis-"  (Rev.  ii.  2.) 

"An  apostle,  not  of  av'  men,  neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ." 
(Gal.  i.  1.) 

We  can  imagine  but  four  ways  in  which  the  persons  alluded 
to  can  have  pretended  to  be  "apostles" — as  special  witnesses 
of  the  resurrection  of  Christ — as  being,  not  apostles  proper,  of 
whom  we  affirm  there  were  many,  but  "  messeng-ers,"  so  called 
— as  having  apostolic  plenary  inspiration,  like  the  thirteen — 
or,  as  possessing  the  apostolic  office;  not  mere  presbytership, 
as  we  shall  prove  ;  but  the  episcopate  proper.  On  each  of 
these  four  views  of  their  case  we  offer  some  remarks. 

L  The  theory  that  the  "  false  apostles"  claimed  to  be  special 
witnesses  of  Christ's  resurrection,  is  not  held,  in  terms,  by  any 
writer  that  we  know  of;  yet  it  must  be  tacitly  allowed  by 
those  who  think  they  pretended  to  be  apostles  proper,  and  that 
none  could  be  such  but  the  special  witnesses.  Such  a  fancy, 
however,  will  not  bear  the  least  investigation.  There  were 
only  thirteen  of  these  witnesses  at  most — at  least  one  of  them, 
James  the  Greater,  was  dead  when  Paul  wrote  to  the  Corin- 
Ihians  against  the  pretenders,  A.  D.  60— at  least  one   otheJB' 

C  257  >; 


268  DISSERTATION    ON   THE    FALSE    APOSTLES 

Paul,  was  personally  k.n.)\vn  lo  tliat  church,  and  no  one  could 
have  there  feigned  to  be  ihal  api>sile — of  the  alibi  of  sotne,  if 
not  all  of  ihi  rest,  th^y  vvere  doubtless  apprized  ;  and  the 
chance  of  an  i  iipostor's  beiu"  taken  for  eillier  of  them  must 
have  been  too  smail  to  aliovv  any  hope  of  success:  add  to  this, 
thai  Thus  had  lately  been  in  Ci)rintn  ;  he  knew  several  of  the 
thirteen,  and  his  testiinony  on  such  a  question  of  personal 
ideniiiy  would  have  bden  final.  Wnen,  again,  thc;se  impostors 
are  mentioned  at  the  later  period,  A.  D.  96,  only  St.  John  was 
livnig;  and  as  it  was  imp<)3Sib.e  for  any  pretender  to  pass 
himself  -d-i  that  one  surviving  special  witness  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, so  was  it  perfectly  absurd  for  several  to  make  the  attempt. 
This  character,  tlierefore,  the  "false  apostles"  did  not  claim. 
Of  course  there  were  other  apostles  besides  the  special  witnesses, 
"With  wlioni  lliey  endeavored  to  rank  themselves. 

2.  Eq  lally  untenable  is  the  supposition,  evading  the  fact  of 
there  having  been  many  apostles  proper,  that  they  pretended  to 
be  '"  messsiiger.%''''  so  called,  or  apostles  not  in  tiie  appropriate 
sense.  Twice  only  are  these  expressly  named,  "  the  messengers 
of  Hie  churches,"  "  Epaphrodiius,  your  messenger."  (2  Cor. 
viii.  23;  Philip,  ii.  25.)  Not  a  few  writers  contend  for  the  trans- 
lation '-apostle"  ill  both  these  places,  in  its  appropriate  mean- 
iui^ — fatal  to  the  notion  that  "  messengership  "  was  all  these 
impostors  claimed.  Taking,  however,  the  translation  as  it 
stands,  we  find  there  were  -'messengers"  sent  by  churches  to 
St.  Paul.  And  we  will  allow,  thougli  we  do  not  find  it  in 
Scripture,  that  messengers  may  have  been  sent  by  one  church 
to  another  c  lurch.  We  further  notice,  that  Paul  despatched 
persons  whom  we  may  call  messengers,  to  both  churches  and 
individuals;  as  Tychicus  to  the  Ephesians  and  to  Timothy, 
Epaphroditiis  to  the  Philippians,  Timothy  and  Erastus  lo  Mace- 
donia, Onesiinus  lo  the  Colossians  and  lo  Philemon,  Phebe  to 
the  Romans,  &c.  Now,  in  regard  to  the  first  class  of  these 
persons,  it  is  clear  tliat  no  one  would  pretend  to  be  the  "  mes- 
senger" of  a  church  lo  an  inspired  apostle,  who  could  instantly 
detect  Hie  fraud.  In  regard  lo  the  next  class;  it  is  evident  that 
a  messenger  from  one  church  to  another,  if  there  were  such 
ap  )ointmenis.  could  not  have  had  the  least  authority  over  the 
latter  body  ;  the  mission  must  have  been  one  of  benevolence 
only,  or  of  courtesy  :  in  other  words,  there  was  no  motive  to 
simulate  the  character.  And  in  regard  to  the  third  class  ;  it  is 
obvious,  that  when  even  a  wjman  was  one  of  the  messengers 
whom  Si.  Paul  sent,  and  to  the  great  church  in  Rome,  there 
could  have  been  nothing  in  tlie  function  to  excite  the  ambition 
of  pretenders.  If  it  be  further  alleged,  that  some  of  PauTs 
messengers  vvere  commissioned  to  rectify  disorders  in  chiirches, 
and  that  "false"  messengers  claimed  a  kindred  authority,  we 
reply,  that  such  functionaries  could  only  be  sent  by  those 
thirteen  principal  Aposlles,  who,  individually,  had  authority 
over  all  churches  ;  so  that  a  successful  claim  to  such  a  missioa 


MENTIONED    IN    SCRIPTURE.  269" 

could  scarcely  have  been  made  at  any  time,  and  certainly  was 
Rext  to  impossible  when  only  St.  Jobn  remained.  We  think, 
therefore,  that  this  second  theory  of  the  "  false  apostleship  "  is 
baseless.  Indeed  we  are  not  aware  that  any  one  expressly 
mainiains  it:  yet,  as  it  is  the  only  hypothesis  left  to  those  who 
confine  the  proper  apostleship  to  the  special  witnesses  of  our 
Lord's  resurrection,  we  have  deemed  it  worthy  of  refutation. 

Let  the  reader  now  mark  the  results  of  what  we  have  thus 
far  presented.  The  impostors  before  us  did  not  pretend  to  be 
mere  "  messengers,"  but  apostles  proper ;  and  they  did  not 
make  this  pretension  as  special  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  Saviour.  They  would  not,  however,  claim  an  office  which  did 
Hot  exist :  therefore,  there  were  apostles  proper  who  were  not  of 
the  number  of  the  special  witnesses.  Neither  would  they  have 
claimed  an  office  that  was  not  common  enough  to  give  their  im- 
posture a  reasonable  chance  of  success :  therefore,  there  weremany 
apostles  proper  besides  the  thirteen  who  were  first  in  the  office. 
There  vvere  many  such  apostles  proper  in  the  year  58,  when  both 
their  existence  and  that  of  pretenders  to  the  station,  as  will 
hereafter  be  seen,  was  recognised  in  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians 
--many  such  in  the  year  60,  when  the  Corinthians  were  cau- 
tioned against  persons  who  falsely  usurped  the  character — 
many  such  about  the  year  96,  when  "the  angel  of  the  church 
of  Ephesus"  had  "  tried  "  and  convicted  some  of  the  false  ones. 
Can  any  reasonable  man  ask  stronger  proof  that  apostles  pro- 
per were  intended  to  be  spread  over  the  Church  generally,  and 
to  be  retained  in  it  permanently  J 

3.  In  some  of  the  foregoing  arguments  we  have  a  strong; 
presumption  against  the  third  hypothesis — that  the  "  false 
apostles"  pretended  to  have,  like  the  thirteen,  plenary  inspira- 
tion. The  lower  kinds  of  inspiration  were  claimed  by  the 
"false  prophets;"  but  these  other  impostors,  if  they  claimed 
inspiration  as  "  apostles,"  must  have  arrogated  ihe  full  measure. 
But  this  seems  very  improbable,  as  there  were  only  eleven  at 
first,  and  only  two  others  afterward,  who  had  the  genuine  claim 
of  this  sort :  and  for  the  impostors  to  allege  that  they  were  of  the 
eleven,  would  have  been  madness,  particularly  when  only  one 
of  the  eleven  survived  ;  and  to  assert  that  they,  like  the  only 
other  two  plenarily  inspired  apostles,  Matthias  and  Paul,  had 
been  thus  added  to  the  eleven,  would  have  indicated  rather  an 
unreflecting  audacity,  than  cool  and  calculating  artifice.  Besides 
the  thirteen,  only  two  are  knawn  to  have  been  tiius  inspired, 
Mark  and  Luke,  which  shows  that  such  persons  were  not  nume- 
rous enough  to  encourage  pretenders:  and  these  two  are  not 
called  apostles,  which  further  shows,  that  even  plenary  inspi- 
ration did  not  imply  apostleship;  so  that  the  impostors  could 
not  have  relied  on  this  pretence  alone,  but  must  have  alleged 
other  grounds  for  their  claim.  And  this  brings  us  to  the  result,, 
that  the  criterion  of  apostleship  proper  was  something  different 
ffom  inspiration,  as  it  was  from  tlie  being  a  special  witness-— - 

4ji 


270  DISSERTATION    ON   THE    FALSE   APOSTLES 

men  might  have,  and  did  have  this  office,  without  either  of 
these  qualifications.  Tliis  is  a  sufficient  disproof  of  the  iheory 
now  before  us. 

As,  however,  it  is  respectably  supported  by  commentators,  we 
shall  add  some  further  remarks  on  the  opinion  that  tl»e  pre- 
teuders  arrogated  full  inspiration  as  the  basis  of  their  alleged 
aposileship.  Such  a  counterfeit  implying  the  rankest  spiritual 
ambition,  it  would  have  been  more  consistent  vviih  their  evil 
purpose  to  assume  independent  cliieftainsliip,  and  pretend  to  be 
Christ,  with  unlimited  authority,  than  to  claim  on!}  the  de-. 
pendent  chieftainship,  whicli  would  be  fettered  by  Chrisiiauily 
as  already  revealed,  and  by  the  rights  of  those  of  the  fully 
inspired  thirteen  who  might  come  in  contact  with  tiieni. 
Accordingly,  we  read  in  history  (Josephus)  of  various  false 
Christs,  but  nowhere  of  false  apostles  who  aspired  to  aposiolic 
plenary  inspiration.  This  laiter  asseriitjn  we  make  on  the 
indirect  authority  of  Hammond,  who  regards  Cennlhus  as  a 
false  apostle,  without  meniioning  any  others.  For  this  char- 
acter of  Cerinthiis,  he  quotes  Caius  in  Eusebius,  who,  however, 
does  not  state  that  Cerinthus  claimed  to  l)e  himself  an  apostle, 
but  only  that  he  "  pretended  revelations  written  by  son^e  great 
apostle,  a>s  vTTo  aiToaroKuv  ntya^ov,  and  related  prodigious  narraiions 
as  showed  him  by  angels."  This  being  the  only  case  given  by 
Hammond,  we  presume  no  other  was  to  be  found.*  And  this, 
obviously,  was  not  a  case  of  arrogating  apostolic  inspiration, 
but  only  of  passing  a  counterfeit  revelation  ascribed  to  some 
other  person  as  a  "great  apostle,"  probably  one  of  the  '■  prime" 
or  primary  ones,  as  Hammond  argues.  As  to  the  alleged 
agency  of  "angels"  in  showing  him  '-wonderful  things,"  such 
a  pretension  put  Cerinthus  below  the  false  prophets,  in  the 
claim  of  inspiration,  and  of  course  far  below  the  son  of  false 
apostles  here  supposed;  for  the  true  Christian  '•  prophets" 
held  direct  communication  with  God,  though  not  of  the 
plenary  kind.  (See  Hammond  on  Rev.  ii.  2,  nole  a,  and 
Cruse's  Eusebius,  p.  113.)  Cerinthus  was  one  of  the  chief 
pretenders  who  professed  to  keep  within  the  Christian  pale; 
and  if  he  did  not  claim  apostolic  inspiration,  it  is  highly  proba- 
ble no  other  pretender  did,  and  infinitely  improbable  that  so 
many  did  as  to  justify,  in  that  sense,  the  broad  denunciation  of 
"false  apostles,"  and  the  broad  allusion  to  "them  which  say 
they  are  apostles,  and  are  not." 

Further:  if  apostolic  plenary  inspiration  had  been  counter- 
feited in  that  age,  we  might  expect  the  counterfeit  to  be  in- 
cluded in  the  warning  against  the  untrue  "spirits;"  but  this  is 

*  Poole's  Synopsis,  on  Rev.  ii.  -2,  quotes  Paraeus  for  Ebion's  being  a  "false 
propliet:"  wlicther  "  filse  apostle"  is  meant  we  do  not  know.  Tiie  existence  ol 
sucli  a  person  is  doubtful.  Moslieim's  rcmarlis  are  to  tliis  effect.  Ensetjius 
does  not  mention  him,  t'longli  Milner,  we  suppose  inadvertently,  says  he  does. 
If  there  weie  ever  such  a  person,  it  does  not  appear  tliat  he  claimed  plenary 
inspiration. 


MENTIONED   IN   SCRIPTURE.  871 

not  th«  case;  on  tlie  contrary,  tlie  only  warning  is  against 
"false  prophets,"  or  pretenders  to  tlie  lower  kinds  of  iiKspira- 
tion.  St.  John,  thirty  years  alter  Si.  Puul  had  denounced  the 
"false  apostles,"  and  only  six  years  belore  doing  so  himself, 
makes  no  iillnsion  whatever  lo  them,  in  his  caiitiun  concerning 
the  ''spirits;"  and  the  omission  is  unaccountable  on  tlie  hypo- 
thesis that  they  claimed  to  be  '-spniis"  of  apostolic  pre- 
eminence— "  Beloved,  believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  ihe 
spirits  whether  they  are  of  God;  because  many  false  prophets 
are  gone  out  into  the  world  " — only  "  false  prophets,"  not  lalse 
apostles  in  the  guise  of  ''spirits."  Surely  the  greater  impos- 
ture, had  it  existed,  would  have  been  exposed  \\  ilh  the  less. 
The  unavoidable  inlerence  is,  therefore,  that  the  greater  exi.-ted 
not — in  otlier  words,  there  were  n(me  who  claimed  falsely 
apostolic  plenary  inspiration — the  '•  false  apostles "  were  not 
such  in  this  sense. 

4.  We  know  of  but  one  other  sense  in  which  the  pretence  to 
apostleship  could  have  been  raised — it  must  have  becii  that  of 
possessing  the  apostolic  office — that  of  being  apostles  proper  in 
the  Chrisiian  wiuistry.  For  this  view  of  tlie  case  tnere  are 
several  arguments.  1.  It  is,  so  far  as  we  can  perceive,  the  only 
explanation  left  us  ;*  the  other  theories  being  untenable.  2.  It 
agrees  with  the  points  established  in  the  last  paragraph  of  our 
second  head,  and  in  the  first  of  our  third  head,  ihai  there  were 
apostles  proper  who  were  not  of  the  thirteen — many  of  themj 
and  these  as  a  general  and  permanent  feature  in  ihe  Church — 
apostles  proper,  who,  being  neither  special  witnesses,  nor  plena- 
rily  inspired,  nor  inspired  in  any  extrafudinary  manner,  could 
only  have  been  such  in  the  ordinary  official  or  minisierial  char- 
acter. 3.  It  agrees  with  the  scriptural  fact,  that  there  were 
apostles  proper,  not  of  the  thirteen,  not  special  witnesses,  not 
having  plenary  inspiration,  as  Barnabiis,  Silv.nus  and  'i'lmolhy, 
Andronicus  and  Junia;  and  with  the  scripinial  intimatKiii  that 
apostles  proper  were  at  least  somewhat  numerous,  "are  all 
apostles?"  4.  Paul  contrasts  the  "  iaise  aposiles'  with  iliose 
who  were  apostlcS  among  the  "  minisiers  of  righteoiisness."  as 
will  be  seen  on  recurring  lo  our  first  quotation,  i.  e.  with  those 
who  held  apostolic  rank  in  the  Chrisiiah  ministry  :  it  was  as 
"ministers"  thai  tiiey  coimlerfeiled  the  apostleship,  not,  so  far 
as  appears,  as  men  extraordinarily  endowed  ;  they  may  perh.ips 
have  claimed  the   lower  inspiraiion,  and  so  have  been   "false 


*  We  have  not  deemed  worthy  of  notice  the  opinion  that  the  false  apostleship 
was  claimed  on  the  pretence  of  iJeiut;  sent  by  Christ  peisonally,  whellier  before 
or  after  his  ascension.  It  is  it  veiy  weak  notion.  If  it  legard  a  simple  missioa 
by  Christ,  as  the  one  c.iicrion  of  the  apusilesliip,  it  is  coinradcied  hv  ti.e  case 
of  the  seventy,  sent  by  him,  yet  not  a|x>slles;  and  by  the  crises  of  Mailhiaa^ 
Barnabas,  Silvanus,  Timolhy,  Andrnnicns,  Junia,  not  sent  by  him,  yet  apostles. 
If  it  do  not  regaid  this  as  the  one  ciiterion,  it  le..ves  the  nature  of  the  apostleship 
undefined,  and  so  settles  nothing  concerning  Uie  position  asstuned  iu  the  Church 
by  the  "  false  apostles." 


272  DISSERTATION    ON   THE    FALSE    APOSTLES 

prophets"  likewise;  more  probably,  they  introduced  false  tr8K 
ditions  under  the  high  authority  they  assumed,  or  gave  here- 
tical glosses  and  explanations  of  the  true  Gospel.  5.  The  same 
quotation  shows  that  they  pretended  to  aposlleship  as  •'  work- 
ers "  or  workmen:  they  were  'deceitful  workmen;"  not  like 
Timothy,  '■'-workmen  that  needed  not  ta  be  ashamed,  rightly 
dividing  the  word  of  truth;''  they  pretended  to  be  "spiritual 
workmen  or  laborers,"  (see  Parkhurst,)  in  other  words,^  mmis- 
ters  of  the  Gospel ;  not  the  passive  channels  of  a  new  revelation, 
but  laborers  in  the  one  already  given  ;  and  such  in  the  apostolic 
character.  6.  'I'he  declaration,  in  the  same  passage,  "  whose 
end  shall  be  according  to  their  works,"  is  parallel  with  that  of 
St.  Jude,  "  and  perished  in  the  gainsaying  of  Core:  "  the  sin  of 
Korah  was  chiefly  the  assumption  of  the  priesthood;  as  occur- 
ring in  the  lime  of  Jude,  that  kind  of  "  gainsaying"  must  have 
meant  the  assumption  of  the  Christian  ministry  ;  and  the  impos- 
tors before  us  assumed  that  ministry  under  the  pretence  of 
being  "  apostles:"  but  they  were  to  "  perish  "  for  their  impiety, 
their  "end  would  be  according  to  their  works" — the  parallel- 
ism seems  complete — and  it  shows  that  the  apostleship  they 
counterfeited  was  ministerial,  official — it  was  the  aposlleship 
proper,  with  its  ordinary  rights  and  functions. 

At  this  pomt  of  our  argument,  we  bring  into  fuller  notice  the- 
third  passage  relating  to  these  impostors — "An  apostle,  nolo/" 
air,men,  neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ."  An  apostle  "of 
men  "  was  one  who  had  only  human  authority — an  apostle  "by 
man"  was  one  set  apart  by  human  ordainers  who  had,  and  who 
conferred  the  divine  commission,  the  ordainers  being  the  autho- 
rized agenls  of  our  Lord — an  apostle  by  "Jesus  Christ"  wa» 
one  set  apart  by  Christ  himself.  (See  Aretius,  Poole's  Synop., 
and  Annot.,*  Doddridge,  and  Parkhurst  on  aTo.)  There  were 
three  classes  of  men,  tiiet'efore,  who  were  called  "apostles" — 
those  without  the  divine  commission,  or  "false  apostles" — 
those  commissioned  by  Christ  indirectly,  through  the  agency  of 
his  commissioned  ministers — and  those  commissioned  by  Christ 
in  person.  And  these  three  classes  were  equally  designated 
"apostles;"  tiie  last  two,  justly;  the  first,  without  a  riglit  to 
the  appellation.  In  other  words,  the  apostles  "  of  men  "  pre- 
tended to  have  the  sa7ne  office,  and  the  apostles  "  by  man  "  had 
the  same  office,w\ih  the  apostles  "  by  Jesus  Christ."  To  be  a 
special  witness  of  the  resurrection  was  nat  requisite,  neither 
was  inspiration  requisite  for  this  office;  and  the  mere  function- 
of  a  "messenger"  can  as  little  be  predicated  of  the  two  other 
classes,  as  of  the  principal  class  to  which  ^,he  eleven  and  Paul 
belonged.  This  text  is  a  clear  and  final  proof  that  the  apostle- 
ship proper  was  to  be  transmitted  by  succession,  and  was  so 


*  Aretius,  on  Gal.  i,  1,  allows  Timothy  and  some  others  to  have  had  the  title, 
"apostle ; "  and  Poole's  Synopsis  and  Annotations  allow  the  same  in  the  case  ojt 
Silas  :  their  authority  can  only  be  1  Thess.  ii.  6.. 


MENTIONED   IN    SCRIPTURE.  373 

transmitted;  as  is  obvious  in  the  phrase  "an  apostle  hy  man:" 
and  this  was  the  sort  of  commission  counterfeited  by  the  impos- 
tors. The  rule  and  fact  of  such  a  succession,  and  the  false 
assumptions  of  it,  show  that  the  office  was  prevalent  in  the 
Church  at  large.  And  the  placing  of  this  rule  and  fact  of  apos- 
tolic succession  "by"  human  ordainers  divinely  commissioned, 
on  perpetual  record,  is  an  intimation  that  the  apostolic  office 
was  never  to  cease. 

We  think  we  have  now  established,  from  the  case  and  the 
passages  before  us,  that  the  apostleship,  as  an  ordinary  minis- 
terial office,  belonged  to  the  Christian  priesthood  in  the  years 
58  and  60,  and  remained  in  it  till  the  year  98  ;  and  this  is  equi- 
valent to  its  being  intended  for  permanence  in  the  Church  :  its 
intended  permanence  is  conclusively  shown  from  its  being 
transmitted  by  succession.  Perhaps  no  further  remarks  are 
necessary,  to  evince  the  support  given  by  this  fact  to  Epis- 
copacy. Lest,  however,  the  advocates  of  parity  should  say  that 
our  argument  is  incomplete — lest  they  should  allege  that  the 
apostles  proper,  in  their  permanent  character,  were  only  such 
as  their  presbyters  or  presbyter-bishops — we  shall  endeavor  to 
settle  this  point  also. 

And  here  we  first  remark,  that  those  only  are  entitled  to 
enter  on  this  particular  portion  of  the  discussion,  who  have  aban- 
doned the  opinions,  if  they  have  ever  held  them,  or  who  have 
never  maintained — that  the  wliole  apostolic  office  proper  was 
extraordinary  and  transient — that  the  being  a  special  witness  of 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  an  essential  qualification  for  the 
apostleship  proper — that  Timothy  must  have  governed  theEphe- 
sian  clergy  as  an  "  evangelist,"  because  he  could  not  have  been  an 
apostle  proper — that  the  "  prophets  and  teachers  "  in  Acts  xiii.  1, 
whether  their  joint  work  was  an  ordination,  a  mission,  or  a 
benediction,  could  not  have  been  apostles  proper  —  that  the 
"presbytery"  mentioned  by  Paul,  supposing  the  word  to  mean 
a  body  of  ministers,  did  not  consist  of  apostles  proper — that 
Titus  and  the  seven  "  angels  "  were  not  apostles  proper  —  nay, 
that  the  "  messengers,"  besides  being  such,  could  not  have  been 
apostles  proper.  In  other  words,  the  very  discussion  of  the  point 
now  b.^fore  us  implies,  that  nearly  the  whole  structure  of  the 
par-ity  argument  from  Scripture  must  be  changed;  which 
means,  that  the  old  parity  argument  must,  in  the  main,  be 
abandoned.  If  so,  what  is  left  to  Non-episcopalians  on  which 
to  base  the  parity  construction  of  the  case  of  the  "  false  apos- 
tles ?  "  not  much,  certainly;  perhaps  we  may  ^say  nothing. 
This  ia  indeed  a  large  result,  but  we  are  confident  it  is  not  over- 
estimated. 

That  the  apostleship  claimed  by  these  pretenders  was  the 
episcopate,  and  not  mere  presbytership,  may  be  proved  by 
the  various  scriptural  arguments  which  show  the  distinction 
between  the  two  offices,  and  the  superiority  of  the  former — by 
the  very  expression  "  apostles  and  elders  " — by  the  fact  that  the 


274  DISSERTATION   ON   THE   FALSE    APOSTLES 

apostles,  including  Timothy  and  Titus,  who  cannot  here  be 
denied  to  have  been  such,  ordained  and  governed  the  clergy, 
while  there  is  no  evidence  that  mere  presbyters  did  so,  &c.  We 
need  not  recapitulate  these  topics,  or  enlarge  upon  them ;  they 
are  sufficiently  developed  in  our  Tract  on  Episcopacy.  The 
impostors,  assuming  the  supreme  title,  arrogated  the  supreme 
station. 

Another  proof  to  ihe  same  effect  is  the  declaration,  "  God 
hath  set  some  in  the  Church,  Jirst^  apostles.^''  We  have  just 
seen  that  the  apostolic  office  was  continued  in  the  Church  till 
the  end  of  the  first  century,  in  its  ordinary  rights  and  functions. 
We  here  see  that  that  office  was  made,  by  God  himself,  "  first'* 
in  the  Church.*  Now,  the  elders  or  presbyter-bishops,  being 
placed  under  other  ministers,  such  as  Timothy  and  Titus,  were 
not  "  first "  in  rank,  and  of  course  were  not  apostles.  Hence  it 
follows  inevitably  that  the  "  false  apostles"  did  not  claim  to  be 
mere  presbyters,  but  arrogated  a  higher  office,  the  highest,  that 
of  apostle-bishops. 

Again:  when  Paul  exclaims,  "Am  I  not  an  apostle?"  he 
intimates  that  his  apostleship  had  been  questioned.  But  who 
would  question  his  being  a  mere  presbyter,  had  that  been  the 
only  grade  of  the  ministry?  it  would  have  been  gratuitous,  ta 
deny  him  a  rank  with  the  "ten  thousand  instructers  "  of  the 
Corinthians.  It  follows,  that  his  apostleship  had  been  ques- 
tioned as  a  function  superior  to  that  of  ministers  generally. 
And  in  asserting  it,  he  includes  in  the  superior  function,  as 
appropriate  to  it,  some  of  the  ordinary  duties  of  the  ministry; 
"Are  ye  not  my  work  in  the  Lord?"  "The  seal  of  mine  apos- 
tleship are  ye  in  the  Lord:"  that  is,  the  Corinthians  had 
received  spiritual  blessings  from  him,  ordinary  in  kind,  yet 
distinctively  such  as  an  apostle  could  confer — blessings  from 
"the  Spirit  of  the  living  God,  written  in  the  fleshly  tables  of 
their  heart."  To  his  imparting  such  blessings  to  them  Paul 
appealed,  as  the  proof — of  what  ?  not  of  his  being  a  mere  minis- 
ter, which  nobody  questioned — but  of  his  being  a  minister  of 
the  apostolic  grade.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  there  were 
ordinary  ministers  of  that  grade  besides  the  inferior  ones. 
And  the  title  assumed  by  the  "false  apostles"  shows  that  ihey 
counterfeited  the  superior  office.  They  claimed  the  imparting 
of  apostolic  benefits,  whether  by  means  of  preaching,  of  counsel, 
of  benedictions,   or   of  prayers,    besides   their   pretending   to 


*  Apostles  being  "%st"  in  the  Church,  and  bishops  being  their  successors, 
the  institution  of  archbishops,  metropolitans,  patriaixlis  and  popes  has  no  scriptural 
authority.  As  mere  human  regulations,  such  arrangements  may,  perhaps,  (the 
three  former,  the  latter  claims  too  much  for  this  salvo,)  be  superinduced  on  the 
Episcopal  system,  on  the  same  principle  that  bishops  are  subjected  to  the  legislation 
and  the  discipline  of  the  Church.  Yet  even  in  this  view,  as  legislation  and  discipline 
are  positively  necessary  for  all  fallible  men,  while  the  setting  of  one  bishop  over  an- 
other is  never  more  than  constructively  necessary,  the  propriety  of  the  latter  is  not. 
to  be  argued  from  that  of  the  former. 


MENTIONED   IN    SCRIPTURE.  275 

regulate  the  doctrines  of  the  Church.      They  arrogated   the 
fullest  powers  that  have  at  any  time  been  ascribed  to  bishops. 

We  conclude  then,  that  the  parity  exposition  of  the  case  of 
the  "  false  apostles"  is  utterly  untenable.  Their  case,  as  con- 
nected with  the  collateral  illustrations,  is,  we  think,  fatal  to  the 
whole  cause  of  parity.  None  but  the  Episcopal  key  will  fit 
these  portions  of  the  sacred  volume — they  all  point  to  Episco- 
pacy as  their  unquestionable  record. 

H.  U.  O. 


NOTE. 

That  it  was  infinitely  improbable  that  the  "false  apostles" 
pretended  to  be  of  the  original  twelve  or  thirteen,  will  appear 
from  such  considerations  as  these:— There  are  sixteen  of  our 
bishops  in  the  United  States:  but  never  has  it  been  attempted 
to  counterfeit  the  person  of  any  of  them,  either  at  home  or 
abroad.  So,  of  tlie  twenty-six  bishops  and  archbishops  in 
England — of  the  nineteen  bishops  and  archbishops  in  Ireland — 
and  of  the  six  bishops  in  Scotland.  We  may  add  the  same 
remark,  so  far  as  we  recollect,  of  all  the  bishops  in  the  Chris- 
tian world.  Persons  have  feigned  to  be  bishops,  as  in  the 
case  of  West,  and  perhaps  the  Greek  mentioned  in  the  accounts 
of  Mr.  Wesley  ;  but  none  have  counterfeited  the  persons  of  other 
bishops — if  otherwise,  the  cases  are  so  rare  and  so  obscure  as 
not  to  affect  this  illustration  of  our  argument.  What  the  impos- 
tors mentioned  in  Scripture  claimed,  was,  to  be  apostles  or 
bishops  in  their  own  persons,  not  in  the  persons  of  any  of 
the  thirteen.  Of  course  the  apostleship  was  not  confined  to 
these  last. 

Our  fellow-citizens  generally  will  perhaps  see  more  clearly 
the  force  of  this  analogy,  in  another  case.  There  are  twenty- 
four  governors  of  States  in  our  Union.  In  no  instance  has  it 
occurred,  that  any  man  has  pretended  to  be  one  of  these.  The 
same  may  probably  be  said  of  all  our  magistrates  of  the  higher 
grades.  So  clear  is  it,  that  the  "  false  apostles "  would  not 
have  pretended  to  be  of  the  original  thirteen  who  held  that 
oflice — and  so  clear,  that  others  besides  the  thirteen  were  made 
apostles— many  others. 


THE   END. 


1 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Spee 


ry-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01035  4472 


